Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 19 days
Interesting thought....
    #879468 - 09/12/02 01:18 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

In its 1998 annual report the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) calculated that it would take less than four percent of the combined wealth of the 225 richest individuals in the world to achieve and maintain access to basic education, basic health care, reproductive health care, adequate food, safe water, and adequate sanitation for all living on the planet.

Source: Dying for Growth, edited by Jim Yong Kim, Joyce V. Millen, Alec Irwin, and John Gershman as cited in JAMA, 8/7/02, p. 642


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879479 - 09/12/02 01:21 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Some important figure in american business said this week that corporate directors had to stop paying themselves so much. 20 years ago they only got 42 times as much as a production worker, now it's sky-rocketed to 400 times as much.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879482 - 09/12/02 01:24 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

That is probably the greatest statistic I've ever heard.

It reveals everything wrong with the current state of things.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879484 - 09/12/02 01:25 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

i heard one the other day from the Pakistani leader. He said that all foriegn aid given to Pakistan since they have been taking in Afghan refugees amounted to $15 per refugee per year.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879501 - 09/12/02 01:35 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Damn... that's fucked up.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879521 - 09/12/02 01:41 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

I suppose the least well known is for all our talk of "giving aid" to africa, for every dollar we give them they give us 13 back.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879522 - 09/12/02 01:42 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

just so ya know i'm not one of those 225......did it give any sort of breakdown of where these rich people are located?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #879530 - 09/12/02 01:45 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Does it matter?

The statistic indicates that capitalism has served its usefulness and has in fact become a burden more than a tool of survival.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 19 days
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #879536 - 09/12/02 01:47 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

No...it didn't break down into specifics...but I think it would be a safe assumption to say that the vast majority would be from the 1st world nations.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #879538 - 09/12/02 01:47 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

i was just curious...i like to see demographics and compare it to the living conditions in a particular place..just curious no real reason


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879540 - 09/12/02 01:48 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

i'm sure they would come from them countries...every now and then you get a billionare living in the middle of no-mans-land


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 months, 25 days
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #879576 - 09/12/02 02:13 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Yeah, pretty much all third world countries have a few really rich people around. More often than not, they're in a position of power.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phluck]
    #879581 - 09/12/02 02:15 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

that's what i was getting at...


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhiskeyClone
Not here
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,509
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phluck]
    #879621 - 09/12/02 02:40 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Castro is a billionaire.


--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man.  For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire.  Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.

~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"

:heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefoghorn
enthusiast
Registered: 12/13/01
Posts: 308
Last seen: 19 years, 4 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: WhiskeyClone]
    #879731 - 09/12/02 03:45 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Im hoping that one day, in the not too distant future we can read about this in textbooks and say "how did we ever let this happen..."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinevatoloco
Puppet Hunter -DBK
Registered: 01/30/02
Posts: 7,653
Last seen: 19 years, 5 months
Post deleted by MOE THE MAD SCIENTIST [Re: foghorn]
    #879788 - 09/12/02 04:11 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 19 days
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: vatoloco]
    #879801 - 09/12/02 04:16 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

In reply to:

capitalism will eventually lead to a majority
of the wealth in the hands of a few.


not eventually...it's already happened.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGabbaDjS
BTH
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/08/01
Posts: 19,681
Loc: By The Lake
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879817 - 09/12/02 04:25 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

My Business Professor drilled into our heads the "80/20" system.

It works for basicaly everything.
80% of the worlds wealth is controlled by 20% of its members.
80% of sales is made from 20% of the product.
80% of the work is done by 20% of the employees.
80% of posts are made by 20% of shroomerites.

on and on... All numbers are not exact but its a general rule and you can apply it to any situation.


--------------------
GabbaDj

FAMM.ORG             

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Rono]
    #879819 - 09/12/02 04:26 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

The point is still valid that dictators tend to make a lot of money, whether they rule a communist state or not.

We really oughta get a list of who these wealthy people are.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 year, 19 days
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #879830 - 09/12/02 04:34 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

I can almost guarantee the richest ones will be from OPEC nations...


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #879867 - 09/12/02 04:59 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

****We really oughta get a list of who these wealthy people are.****

don't they have the right to have this money? Or is it bad now to be rich?


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhiskeyClone
Not here
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,509
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #879883 - 09/12/02 05:09 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

For curiousity's sake, the 225 richest people in the world in 2001. The number represents billions of dollars in net worth.


1 Gates, William H. III 58.7 United States
2 Buffett, Warren Edward 32.3 United States
3 Allen, Paul Gardner 30.4 United States
4 Ellison, Lawrence Joseph 26 United States
5 Albrecht, Theo & Karl 25 Germany
6 Alsaud, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal 20 Saudi Arabia
7 Walton, Jim C. 18.8 United States
8 Walton, John T. 18.7 United States
9 Walton, S. Robson 18.6 United States
10 Walton, Alice L. 18.5 United States
10 Walton, Helen R. 18.5 United States
12 Quandt, Johanna & family 17.8 Germany
13 Ballmer, Steven Anthony 16.6 United States
14 Thomson, Kenneth & family 16.4 Canada
15 Bettencourt, Liliane 15.6 France
16 Anschutz, Philip F. 15.3 United States
17 Kamprad, Ingvar 13 Sweden
18 Li Ka-shing 12.6 Hong Kong
18 Redstone, Sumner M. 12.6 United States
20 Kirch, Leo 12 Germany
21 Anthony, Barbara Cox 11.7 United States
21 Chambers, Anne Cox 11.7 United States
23 Kwok brothers, Walter, Thomas, Raymond 11.5 Hong Kong
24 Kluge, John Werner 10.9 United States
25 Slim Hel?, Carlos 10.8 Mexico
26 Arnault, Bernard 10.7 France
27 Bertarelli, Ernesto & family 10.5 Switzerland
27 Dell, Michael 10.5 United States
29 Berlusconi, Silvio 10.3 Italy
30 Johnson, Abigail 9.1 United States
31 Mars, Forrest Edward Jr. 9 United States
31 Mars, Jacqueline Badger 9 United States
31 Mars, John Franklyn 9 United States
31 Rausing, Kirsten & family 9 Sweden
35 Ergen, Charles 8.8 United States
35 Turner, Robert E. (Ted) 8.8 United States
37 Takei, Yasuo & family 8.3 Japan
38 Olayan, Suliman 8 Saudi Arabia
39 Murdoch, Keith Rupert 7.8 United States
40 Rausing, Hans 7.7 Sweden
40 Saji, Nobutada & family 7.7 Japan
42 Premji, Azim & family 6.9 India
43 Del Vecchio, Leonardo 6.6 Italy
43 Ortega, Amancio 6.6 Spain
45 Grosvenor, Gerald Cavendish 6.5 United Kingdom
46 Kerkorian, Kirk 6.4 United States
47 Pinault, Francois 6.3 France
47 Schwab, Charles R. 6.3 United States
49 Landolt, Pierre & family 6.1 Switzerland
50 Al-Kharafi, Nasser & family 6 Kuwait
50 Soros, George 6 United States
52 Lee Shau Kee 5.9 Hong Kong
53 Broad, Eli 5.8 United States
54 Goodnight, James 5.7 United States
55 Kinoshita, Kyosuke & family 5.6 Japan
55 Son, Masayoshi 5.6 Japan
57 Benetton, Luciano & family 5.5 Italy
57 Pritzker, Robert Alan 5.5 United States
57 Pritzker, Thomas J. 5.5 United States
60 Curt, Engelhorn 5.4 Germany
60 Halley, Paul-Louis & family 5.4 France
60 Moore, Gordon Earle 5.4 United States
60 Plattner, Hasso 5.4 Germany
64 Cisneros, Gustavo & family 5.3 Venezuela
64 Flick, Friedrich Karl Jr. 5.3 Germany
64 Haefner, Walter 5.3 Switzerland
64 Persson, Stefan 5.3 Sweden
68 Fukuda, Yoshitaka 5.2 Japan
69 Lerner, Alfred 5.1 United States
70 Newhouse, Donald Edward 5 United States
70 Newhouse, Samuel Irving Jr. 5 United States
70 Otto, Michael & family 5 Germany
70 von Finck, August 5 Germany
70 Wertheimer, Alain & Gerard 5 France
75 Dassault, Serge & family 4.9 France
76 Herz, G?nter & family 4.8 Germany
76 Yanai, Tadashi 4.8 Japan
78 Gerling, Rolf 4.7 Germany
79 Johnson, Edward Crosby III 4.6 United States
79 Latsis, Spiros & family 4.6 Greece
79 von Holtzbrinck, Dieter & family 4.6 Germany
82 Bloomberg, Michael Rubens 4.5 United States
82 Davis, Marvin H. 4.5 United States
82 Ito, Masatoshi 4.5 Japan
82 Johnson, Samuel Curtis 4.5 United States
82 Mendoza, Lorenzo & family 4.5 Venezuela
82 Mohn, Reinhard 4.5 Germany
82 Omidyar, Pierre M. 4.5 United States
82 Oppenheimer, Nicky & family 4.5 South Africa
90 Irving, James, Arthur & John 4.4 Canada
90 Oetker, Rudolf & family 4.4 Germany
92 Bass, Lee Marshall 4.3 United States
92 Greenberg, Maurice Raymond 4.3 United States
92 Knight, Philip H. 4.3 United States
95 Iwasaki, Fukuzo 4.2 Japan
96 Arison, Micky 4.1 United States
96 Wang, Patrick 4.1 Hong Kong
98 Annenberg, Walter Hubert 4 United States
98 Bren, Donald L. 4 United States
98 Haub, Erivan & family 4 Germany
98 Heineken, Alfred 4 Netherlands
98 Warner, H. Ty 4 United States
98 Weston, Galen & family 4 Canada
104 Bass, Sid Richardson 3.8 United States
104 Huntsman, Jon Meade 3.8 United States
104 Lauder, Leonard Alan 3.8 United States
104 Perot, Henry Ross 3.8 United States
104 Tsai Wan-lin & family 3.8 Taiwan
109 Arison Dorsman, Shari 3.7 Israel
109 Icahn, Carl 3.7 United States
109 Karamehmet, Mehmet & family 3.7 Turkey
109 Kuok, Robert 3.7 Malaysia
109 Sidhu, Sanjiv 3.7 United States
109 Wang, Nina 3.7 Hong Kong
115 Simplot, John R. 3.6 United States
116 Ermirio de Moraes, Jos? & Antonio 3.5 Brazil
116 Hayek, Nicolas 3.5 Switzerland
116 McCaw, Craig O. 3.5 United States
116 Ng Teng Fong & family 3.5 Singapore
116 Okada, Kazuo 3.5 Japan
116 Saban?i, Sakip & family 3.5 Turkey
116 Schmidheiny, Stephan 3.5 Switzerland
116 Worth, Reinhold 3.5 Germany
124 Ambani, Dhirubhai & family 3.4 India
124 Bronfman, Charles R. 3.4 Canada
124 Geffen, David 3.4 United States
124 Kroenke, Ann Walton 3.4 United States
124 Louis-Dreyfus, Gerard & family 3.4 France
124 Sorenson, James L. 3.4 United States
130 Bronfman, Edgar M. Sr. 3.3 United States
130 Ebner, Martin 3.3 Switzerland
130 Hostetter, Amos Barr Jr. 3.3 United States
130 Itoyama, Eitaro 3.3 Japan
130 Jinnai, Ryoichi 3.3 Japan
130 Marcus, Bernard 3.3 United States
130 Mori, Akira 3.3 Japan
130 Perelman, Ronald Owen 3.3 United States
138 Fisher, Donald George 3.2 United States
138 Fisher, Doris Feigenbaum 3.2 United States
138 Foriel-Destezet, Phillipe 3.2 France
138 Kipp, Karl-Heinz 3.2 Germany
138 Koch, Charles De Ganahl 3.2 United States
138 Koch, David Hamilton 3.2 United States
138 Lauder, Ronald Steven 3.2 United States
138 Tisch, Preston Robert 3.2 United States
146 Agnelli, Giovanni & family 3.1 Italy
146 Al-Hariri, Rafik & family 3.1 Lebanon
146 Crown, Lester & family 3.1 United States
146 Doris, Ennio 3.1 Italy
146 Wrigley, William Jr. 3.1 United States
151 Azc?rraga Jean, Emilio 3 Mexico
151 Bass, Robert Muse 3 United States
151 Bechtel, Riley P. 3 United States
151 Bechtel, Stephen Davison Jr. 3 United States
151 Hillman, Henry Lea 3 United States
151 Jameel, Mohammed & family 3 Saudi Arabia
151 Kamel, Saleh 3 Saudi Arabia
151 Khoo Teck Puat 3 Singapore
151 Lucas, George 3 United States
151 Perrenchio, Andrew Jerrold 3 United States
151 Salinas Pliego, Ricardo & family 3 Mexico
162 Hopp, Dietmar & family 2.9 Germany
162 Safra, Joseph & Moise 2.9 Brazil
162 Wexner, Leslie Herbert 2.9 United States
162 Yamauchi, Hiroshi 2.9 Japan
162 Zambrano, Lorenzo & family 2.9 Mexico
167 Dolan, Charles Francis 2.8 United States
167 Faria, Aloysio de Andrade 2.8 Brazil
167 Jacobs, Klaus 2.8 Switzerland
167 Sall, John 2.8 United States
167 Taylor, Jack Crawford 2.8 United States
167 Tsutsumi, Yoshiaki 2.8 Japan
167 Udvar-Hazy, Steven Ferencz 2.8 United States
174 Cheng Yu-tung 2.7 Hong Kong
174 Lefrak, Samuel Jayson 2.7 United States
174 Schroder, Bruno 2.7 United Kingdom
174 Skoll, Jeff 2.7 Canada
174 Wang, Y.C. 2.7 Taiwan
179 Fujita, Den 2.6 Japan
179 Schmidheiny, Thomas 2.6 Switzerland
179 Tschira, Klaus 2.6 Germany
182 Beisheim, Otto 2.5 Germany
182 Ecclestone, Bernard 2.5 United Kingdom
182 Garza Lag?era, Eugenio & family 2.5 Mexico
182 Gerry, Alan 2.5 United States
182 Ko?, Rahmi & family 2.5 Turkey
182 Kroc, Joan Beverly & family 2.5 United States
182 Malone, John C. 2.5 United States
182 Packer, Kerry 2.5 Australia
182 Rockefeller, David Sr. 2.5 United States
182 Rowling, Robert 2.5 United States
182 Schmidt-Ruthenbeck, Rainer & Michael 2.5 Germany
182 Takizaki, Takemitsu 2.5 Japan
194 Khodorkovsky, Mikhail 2.4 Russia
194 Nicholas, Henry T. 2.4 United States
194 Stern, Leonard Norman 2.4 United States
194 Tisch, Laurence Alan 2.4 United States
198 Bosch, Robert Jr. & family 2.3 Germany
198 Bouygues, Martin & family 2.3 France
198 Buffett, Susan Thompson 2.3 United States
198 Davidson, William Morse 2.3 United States
198 Getty, Gordon Peter 2.3 United States
198 Hunt, Ray Lee 2.3 United States
198 Kaiser, George B. 2.3 United States
198 Kuo, Terry 2.3 Taiwan
198 Lauren, Ralph 2.3 United States
198 Samueli, Henry 2.3 United States
198 Schulze, Richard M. 2.3 United States
209 Decaux, Jean-Claude 2.2 France
209 Duffield, David A. 2.2 United States
209 Huizenga, H. Wayne 2.2 United States
209 Ingram, Martha Robinson Rivers 2.2 United States
209 Johnson, Barbara Piasecka 2.2 United States
209 Kim, James 2.2 United States
209 Laurie, Nancy Walton 2.2 United States
209 Lowy, Frank 2.2 Australia
209 M?ller, Maersk Mc-Kinney 2.2 Denmark
209 Nadar, Shiv 2.2 India
209 Sherman, Bernard (Barry) 2.2 Canada
209 Siebel, Thomas M. 2.2 United States
209 Yoshida, Tadahiro 2.2 Japan
222 Al Rajhi, Sulaiman bin Abdul Aziz 2.1 Saudi Arabia
222 Dorrance, John T. III 2.1 Ireland
222 Gonda, Louis L. 2.1 United States
222 Johnson, Charles Bartlett 2.1 United States


--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man.  For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire.  Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.

~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"

:heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: WhiskeyClone]
    #879891 - 09/12/02 05:12 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

It would be interesting to see that on a graph or pie chart. Not interesting enough to do myself but interesting to see.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #880111 - 09/12/02 07:43 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

hello innvertigo, i think its about time we justify the extremely unequal distribution of highly valued but scarce resources in our society today

after all, you wouldnt want to be defending the use of an unfair system, right?

well ill help you out a little.
its quite simple, because, it is natural!
class society is natural.


"The laws of commerce, are laws of nature, and consequently the laws of God."

-edmund burke


Or as Greenspan put it, "the lesson that appears to be emerging is that only free market systems exhibit the flexibility and robustness to accommodate human nature and harness rapidly advancing technology to consistently advance living standards."

and thus, as such
the needs and wants of the great majority must be subjected to the market

how wealth is divided from then on is part of a natural process

one from which humans cannot break themselves

if a lot more goes to the top than the bottom, well shucks
that is not the result of any sort of failure!
but simply one class doing more for society than the other, right?

if the top 1% of society controls 50% of the stock market
and the next 9% the next 40%
and if the top 10% own more than 50% of all of the national assets
and if the top 20% takes more than 60% of the GDP, with more than 14% going to the top 1%

then what we are looking at is not some bad thing

but rather the workings of the greatest thing ever

the reason people are rich is because they have bettered the thing that gives us everything
it must be accepted that capital order and the prevailing class society is inevitable, for all economic organization inevitably takes place in the form of a small class of "movers and shakers" and a large class of doers

moreover, the market is the only system compatible with any form of democracy because as history has shown, attempts to create marketless communist states ended up totally undemocratic.

so there you have it
the tried and true defense of the american way of life using indisputable logic

its comforting that logic always prevails



--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #880120 - 09/12/02 07:48 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Our task, however, is not merely to present as an empirical fact the glaring contradiction between the real situation confronting the majority of the world's people and the pronouncements of the defenders of capital on the wonders of the free market and the virtues of the profit system.

It is necessary to reveal why deepening social polarization, in which, to use Marx's words, "the accumulation of wealth at one pole is ... at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole... " is embedded in the inherent logic of the profit system.

Furthermore we must establish how the very development of global capitalism not only makes necessary the passage to a new and higher social system based on the fulfillment of human need, but indeed lays the objective foundations for it.

To conduct this analysis it is necessary to establish some fundamental issues. Capitalism as a social system of production is not directed to the production of wealth as such and, contrary to the rhetoric of the "free marketeers" it is not a system of production whose goal is the satisfaction of consumer wants and needs.

The driving force of the capitalist mode of production is the accumulation of profit- the endless expansion of value- the source of which is the labor-power of the working class.

Every class society is, in the final analysis, based on the extraction of surplus labor from the class of direct producers for the benefit of the owners of the means of production. But class societies differ fundamentally in their structure.

These differences are determined in the final analysis by the social mechanisms through which the extraction of surplus labor takes place. Under earlier forms of class society such as slavery and feudalism, the extraction of surplus labor occurred through the application of political force.

Under capitalism it takes place through the system of social relations based on the free market, which reaches its highest development in the wages system.

Surplus labor under capitalism takes the form of surplus value, the source of which is the difference in the value of the commodity the worker sells to capital in the wage contract that is, his labor-power or capacity to work, and the value which the use of this labor-power creates in the production process.

The value of labor-power and the value added by the worker in the production process in the course of the working day are two entirely different magnitudes. This difference is the source of surplus value, which appears on the surface of society in the form of profit, interest and rent.
etc.

http://wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/lec1-j05.shtml



--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #880124 - 09/12/02 07:51 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

you never answered my question:

"don't they have the right to have this money? Or is it bad now to be rich?"

also make sure you add that 5% of our population pays most of the income tax..but that's neither here nor there


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #880141 - 09/12/02 08:07 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

if someone is going to be able to consume 100, 1000 or x times more labor (value) than, say, the average propertyless laborer, it needs to be done in a democratic forum where it is decided that the person has actually done something for society to deserve such wealth.

they have the right to be rich, but not when others are needy;
bereft of basic needs.

moreover, they have to right to be rich only if they themselves created the value to make themselves rich

not inherited something or presided over income-earning property, laying claim to the great spoils


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleInnvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Male

Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #880192 - 09/12/02 08:39 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

****if someone is going to be able to consume 100, 1000 or x times more labor (value) than, say, the average propertyless laborer, it needs to be done in a democratic forum where it is decided that the person has actually done something for society to deserve such wealth.****

and you feel it should be up to people like you to determine what a person makes?...Socialism at its finest

****they have the right to be rich, but not when others are needy****

Define rich. Rich is probably different per person...or perhaps you'd like to determine that for the rest of society?

****moreover, they have to right to be rich only if they themselves created the value to make themselves rich****

I bet you a majority of those on that list did just that...Bill Gates for example, also the waltons started with absolutly nothing..... or do you want to determine what value is?

****not inherited something or presided over income-earning property, laying claim to the great spoils****

No offense but you sound awfully bitter. Being envious towards someone for having what you percieve to be an better life is not justifiable. You want everyone, even those that refuse to better themselves to be equal financially....Socialism at its finest

Just so you know I am 100% against socialism...


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #880439 - 09/12/02 11:22 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Being envious towards someone for having what you percieve to be an better life

Nah, I don't think there's any envy there. If you can live with yourself sitting on 60 billion while you pay little girls in south east asia a pitiful wage and force them to work 36 hour shifts under threat of being bullwhipped then good luck to you. It's not the kind of thing I want on my conscience.

Just so you know I am 100% against socialism...

Seig Heil!



--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleWhiskeyClone
Not here
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,509
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #880506 - 09/12/02 11:48 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Since I'm morbidly drunk I'll just say this... As left wing as I am, I believe anyone who makes billions of dollars legitimately under a capitialist system HAS earned it and is entitled to it. The distribution of wealth in the the US is ANYTHING but fair, but capitialism was never about fairness, and Bill Gates is the rightful owner of every one of his fifty billion dollars, regardless of how well an underpriviled community can utilize that money. I only urge him to redistribute that money in an altruistic manner...

In reply to:

also make sure you add that 5% of our population pays most of the income tax..but that's neither here nor there




I'm calling this bullshit... source please...




--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man.  For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire.  Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.

~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"

:heartpump:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Innvertigo]
    #880664 - 09/12/02 01:29 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

You ask if 1 percent of the population has a right to 50 percent of our national assets.

I believe that all men were created with certain inalienable rights, including most importantly liberty. I also believe that it is our obligation as the world's wealthiest nation to at least make something bordering on an attempt to provide to the masses what the founding fathers believed God has intended.

The first and most essential liberty is one that we all take for granted. Liberty from poverty.

What about a person's right to food?
A bed?
An education?

And all it would take is 4 percent of our immense wealth?

The wealthy should feel obligated.

And, no, I guess I don't think they have a right not to.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #880950 - 09/12/02 05:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Senor Doobie writes:

You ask if 1 percent of the population has a right to 50 percent of our national assets.

First of all, 1% of Americans do not own 50% of America's assets. For that matter, 1% of Americans don't even own 50% of all America's CURRENCY. Anyone who states this as a FACT will have to provide a RELIABLE source to back this claim. Links to some nutjob at rense.com don't count.

I also believe that it is our obligation as the world's wealthiest nation to at least make something bordering on an attempt to provide to the masses what the founding fathers believed God has intended.

But attempts ARE made. Foreign aid is a fact of life. As for donating as a "nation" -- a nation is nothing more than many individuals. Every individual in America is free to donate as much of his time and property as he deems proper to people in need. For that matter, every person on that list, American or not, can do the same.

What about a person's right to food?
A bed?
An education?


In a civilized society, any individual has the right to take whatever actions necessary to obtain food and a bed and an education, as long as he doesn't violate the rights of other individuals. These actions include but are not necessarily limited to: growing food or gathering it from the wild, making a bed, starting a business or working for others (then exchanging the currency obtained from profits or wages for food, a bed, and education), begging from others, marrying someone who will support them... you get the idea.

And all it would take is 4 percent of our immense wealth?

That figure is so obviously bogus it's hardly worth the few minutes it will take to debunk it. But since it is so easy to show it's nonsense, I'll make the effort.

Add up all those personal fortunes, divide by 25, and you get $52,124,000,000. That's right, folks -- 52 billion US dollars. If you don't believe me, do the math yourself -- it only takes a few minutes.

So, all that's necessary to "...achieve and maintain access to basic education, basic health care, reproductive health care, adequate food, safe water, and adequate sanitation for all living on the planet" is for Bill Gates to fork over 88.7 per cent of his fortune. No problem, right? That would still leave him with enough to make him the 44th wealthiest individual in the world. Not bad for a computer geek that started with nothing.

Or, the wealthiest billion people on the planet could all chip in a dollar a week for a year. Problem solved.

But, of course, the authors of that report don't bother to tell you that the top "Baker's Dozen" of the largest foreign aid contributers (US, Japan, Germany, Canada, Italy, England, Spain, France, The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Australia) already kick in MORE than that figure EVERY YEAR. Those thirteen countries alone contributed US $52,738,000 in 1999. See:

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp?so=d#oda

And that's just taxpayer money. There are billions and billions more annually in voluntary donations, much of it from some of the rich folks on that list. From the same site:

"...it is interesting to note for example, per latest estimates, Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas --

* International giving by U.S. foundations totals $1.5 billion per year
* Charitable giving by U.S. businesses now comes to at least $2.8 billion annually
* American NGOs gave over $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
* Religious overseas ministries contribute $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
* $1.3 billion by U.S. colleges are given in scholarships to foreign students
* Personal remittances from the U.S. to developing countries came to $18 billion in 2000


That's PER YEAR, boys and girls. So, counting taxpayer dollars from the top thirteen governments PLUS private money from the US only (I can't be bothered finding numbers for the private donations of the other dozen countries I listed... why bother?) we get a total of at least 86 billion US dollars each and every year.

According to that same site, the TOTAL funds from all sources handled by the OECD for the year 2000 was US $130.67 billion. That, by the way, is almost exactly 10% of the total fortunes of the 225 people listed in this thread. And Oxfam (on the same website) says they need another 100 billion a year ON TOP OF THAT. In other words, all the people on that list could give every penny they own to OECD today, and in five and a half years OECD would be back for more.

The wealthy should feel obligated.

Many of them do. Some of them donate more than some countries do.

And, no, I guess I don't think they have a right not to.

Of course the wealthy have the RIGHT to do what they choose with money they have earned and managed to keep from the government. I personally have always given money to those less fortunate than myself, and I can't imagine anyone with a conscience not doing the same. But if someone chooses not to do so, that's his right. It is neither illegal nor immoral to be a jerk.

pinky

P.S. By the way, this is a perfect example of what happens time after time in this forum. Someone pulls a quote from some seemingly unimpeachable source (or even from rense.com), and everyone accepts it as gospel. I spent maybe five minutes doing the calculations, and maybe three seconds with a Google search (I opened the first site in the list of the key words "annual US foreign aid") in order to blow the claim of Jim Yong Kim, Joyce V. Millen, Alec Irwin, and John Gershman (as cited in JAMA, 8/7/02, p. 642) right out of the water. Y'all can do the same if you bother to actually THINK. (That was not a poke at you, Doobie -- I find almost all of your posts to be pretty sensible)


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineamanita3
Rumplestiltskin
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 69
Loc: High Desert
Last seen: 20 years, 11 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #881011 - 09/12/02 06:55 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

What a pile of horse shit! Figgures lie and Liars figgure, pink shark fuck.

This is hell, Satan still rules, and his appologists are still devils.

Twas ever thus, you ignorant twits.  :grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #881217 - 09/12/02 11:25 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"It is neither illegal nor immoral to be a jerk."

Firstly, good post mark. I have to be more careful about what I believe on the internet.

I do, however, disagree with the statement I quoted. The immoral part of it, in particular as there is no arguing the legality of it.

It does come down to human rights. And I strongly believe that a person's right to three squares a day outweighs one's right to a private jet and a mansion on every coastline.

I disagree that human rights only apply to "civilized" people. The founding fathers made no such stipulation in the Declaration of Independance. The language is clear. ALL men are created equal, with certain INALIANABLE rights.

If freedom is described as the right to do what you want so long as you don't step on the rights of others, than the uberwealthy are certainly NOT free to horde such a large number of assets, if not half of them, as I have come to accept as fact through talking to some highly intelligent, though maybe gullible, people here.

I'm not sure that this is untrue, but will accept the possibility.

Anyway, it would take a bit more than cash to make sure that the rights of every world citizen are met. It would take a centralized institution with influences of power.

I think that it is extremely important for the US as world leaders to pave the way to ensure that the demands are met and I absolutely not think that it should be left to personal choice any more than I think murder should.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepolitikill
journeyman

Registered: 05/23/02
Posts: 72
Loc: THC, Canada
Last seen: 21 years, 6 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #882071 - 09/13/02 11:53 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"The love of money as a possession--as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life--will be recognized for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease"
-- John Maynard Keynes

Perhaps you should think about this Pink Shark Fuck (lol)... sorry Pinky but that was funny...
I won't insult you by asking if you know who Keynes was... He was right on this one though...
The problem has never been our politikill logic but the way we inact it. We can image a perfect society but can't maintain a decent relationship. The failure found in the luxury not in the hardship...


--------------------
Censorship: ahh, McCarthyism with a smiley face


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #882908 - 09/13/02 07:07 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

First of all, 1% of Americans do not own 50% of America's assets. For that matter, 1% of Americans don't even own 50% of all America's CURRENCY. Anyone who states this as a FACT will have to provide a RELIABLE source to back this claim. Links to some nutjob at rense.com don't count.

How about providing a link to prove what you're saying? Or are you just guessing?

When anyone does provide a link you just ignore it and go quiet anyway.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #882915 - 09/13/02 07:10 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

And that's just taxpayer money. There are billions and billions more annually in voluntary donations, much of it from some of the rich folks on that list. From the same site:

The little point that sites like this will never inform you of is debt repayment. For every dollar you give to Africa in "aid" they pay you $13 back. Africa is giving America more than America gives to Africa. Thirteen times more. Kinda screws up your little theory don't it.  :grin:


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #883000 - 09/13/02 07:59 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

The little point that sites like this will never inform you of is debt repayment.

You didn't read the site at all, did you? The site is very critical of the amount of money the developed nations GIVE to the undeveloped nations. I deliberately chose a leftist, bleeding heart liberal site to make my point, not a heartless capitalist site that thinks foreign aid is a waste of money. These guys LOVE foreign aid... they want MORE of it. How much fairer can I be?

For every dollar you give to Africa in "aid" they pay you $13 back.

LOL. When you first posted this statistic, you said the ratio was one dollar to sixteen POUNDS. Now it's one dollar to thirteen dollars? Which is it?

Africa is giving America more than America gives to Africa.

You are missing the difference between charity and loans. America GIVES outright, with no necessity of repayment, billions of dollars as a GIFT. At the same time, American financial institutions LOAN (at preferential rates, with extremely generous repayment schedules that are more often than not ignored) many times more billions.

A loan is meant to be repayed. Hence the term "debt repayment".

Thirteen times more.

I don't find it hard to believe that the amount of loans is thirteen times higher than the amount of charity.

Kinda screws up your little theory don't it.

What theory? I presented no theory. I didn't say I was for or against foreign aid. I didn't say I thought the amount of aid was too high or too low. I merely showed that the people who claimed that world poverty could be solved if only the world's top 225 wealthiest people would part with 4% of their money were talking through their hat.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #883033 - 09/13/02 08:16 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex 123 writes:

How about providing a link to prove what you're saying? Or are you just guessing?

Sigh. You really don't understand how this works, do you? One more time:

If someone makes a questionable claim and presents it as FACT rather than as opinion, it is customary to back up the claim. It is not up to me to prove he is wrong, it is up to him to prove he has at least some reasonable basis for proclaiming what he does.

The claim was quite specific -- "One per cent of Americans own 50% of America's assets". This isn't the kind of thing one makes up -- it's the kind of thing one reads or hears somewhere. I want to know WHERE he read it. Was it a US government study? A UN survey? A report from the Bank of America?

If I say, "It's common knowledge that Alex123 is a fourteen year old girl on heavy daily doses of thorazine who manages to escape from her cell every now and then and peck out messages on the machine in the sanitarium's dayroom. She has to use her nose to type because her arms are confined in a strait-jacket," and you reply, "Bullshit! That's not true at all! Provide your source for this outrageous claim!" is it right for me to say, "I don't have to. YOU provide ME a source supporting your denial."

I mean, come on! Even YOU don't believe that. You're just being (surprise, surprise) bloody minded again.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #883048 - 09/13/02 08:21 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

When anyone does provide a link you just ignore it and go quiet anyway.

When have I done that? Which thread? I call you on that one.

There are only so many hours in a day, and there are many, many dubious posts made here every day. I may not always respond the same day, but I DO eventually respond. Please direct me to one in which I haven't yet responded and I will rectify the situation at the earliest opportunity.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #883175 - 09/13/02 09:56 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"Define rich. Rich is probably different per person...or perhaps you'd like to determine that for the rest of society?"

Rich is having more than you use and/or need. People usually get rich by capitalizing on means of production and underpaying laborers. As long as there are rich people( having more than they need) then somebody somewhere is going without because of it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #883510 - 09/14/02 05:52 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

Rich is having more than you use and/or need.

So anyone who has more in his pocket than he requires to meet his needs of the next 24 hours is rich? Anyone with a bit of money in the bank and no outstanding debts is rich?

As long as there are rich people( having more than they need) then somebody somewhere is going without because of it.

Ah. Yet another disciple of Marx, who can't grasp the connection between human effort and wealth. You are saying in principle, that it is impossible for someone to thrive unless someone else starves; that commerce is a "zero-sum" game; that there is a fixed amount of goods in the world, and the only thing the global economy accomplishes is to redistribute the slices of a static "pie".

If you really believe that, it's no wonder you make the statements you do.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #883585 - 09/14/02 06:45 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Senor Doobie writes:

It does come down to human rights. And I strongly believe that a person's right to three squares a day outweighs one's right to a private jet and a mansion on every coastline.

Rights pertain to ACTIONS, not to RESULTS or OBJECTS. Any individual has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to feed himself and his dependents (always presuming, of course, that these actions do not violate the rights of others). But he does not have the right to force (either directly or through agents -- i.e. government) OTHERS to provide food to him.

All human existence depends on human effort -- on productive work. You don't get food by lying on your back and waiting for it to drop into your open mouth. You must WORK to get it -- you must identify it, find it, gather it, prepare it, eat it. Since there can be no such thing as human existence without human effort, all that is left to debate is WHOSE effort supports WHOSE existence. My position is that each individual is responsible for continuing his OWN existence. Note that I do not say that an individual may not CHOOSE to assist others. But the mere fact that any given individual exists does not make him RESPONSIBLE for the continued existence of others.

I disagree that human rights only apply to "civilized" people. The founding fathers made no such stipulation in the Declaration of Independance. The language is clear. ALL men are created equal, with certain INALIANABLE rights.

I phrased my point clumsily. Thank you for pointing it out. What I was trying to express is that while it is true that all humans by their nature possess certain inalienable rights, it is only in a CIVILIZED society that they are left free to exercise those rights.

If freedom is described as the right to do what you want so long as you don't step on the rights of others, than the uberwealthy are certainly NOT free to horde such a large number of assets...

Why not? Where is the logical connection?

Whose rights were violated by Bill Gates's purchase of a lavish home? Whose life was damaged by Donald Trump's purchase of a Ferrari? Which individuals were prevented from trading their labor for food by Peter Pocklington's purchase of a hockey team?

Anyway, it would take a bit more than cash to make sure that the rights of every world citizen are met.

Correct. It would take governments that recognize and respect the rights of individuals.

It would take a centralized institution with influences of power.

Not necessarily. If every government of every nation in the world were to adopt AND FOLLOW scrupulously the principles laid out in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, there would be no need for such an instituion.

I think that it is extremely important for the US as world leaders to pave the way to ensure that the demands are met...

Which demands? I must have missed something.

...and I absolutely not think that it should be left to personal choice any more than I think murder should.

Here we disagree. To deliberately shoot someone through the head, thereby causing his death, is not even remotely equivalent to buying a Lexus with money you earned through honest means.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #883593 - 09/14/02 06:48 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"So anyone who has more in his pocket than he requires to meet his needs of the next 24 hours is rich? Anyone with a bit of money in the bank and no outstanding debts is rich?"

what did I say about 24 hours? you just made that up.

A good example of somebody being rich would be a landlord. He makes his living by owning not just his own home, but owning the homes of many other people. There is no right to the ownership of somebody else's home. You only need one home, so why own more?

"You are saying in principle, that it is impossible for someone to thrive unless someone else starves; that commerce is a "zero-sum" game"

Not really no. I believe that there is enough for everyone to thrive and for nobody to starve, but as long as people take more than they need then there will be people going without. That doesn't necessarily mean there are a fixed amount of resources, but there is only so much resources that are available in any economy.

If you think I am wrong then why don't you tell me why it is wrong??? I won't stop believing what I believe until you can provide me with a more sensible alternative.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinebruisedBlue
nihilisticmystic
Registered: 08/26/02
Posts: 21
Last seen: 21 years, 4 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #883656 - 09/14/02 07:30 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"I believe that there is enough for everyone to thrive and for nobody to starve, but as long as people take more than they need then there will be people going without."

Define need. There are no NEEDS. There is only a need once a goal has been defined. For example, I have decided (or my instinct has for me) that I desire to live. Therefore I must nourish my body to stay alive. However, I do not NEED to live. What we are talking about here is wants, and man has proven over and over that his wants are unlimitted. Say someone lives in a carboard box. And someone else lives in a castle. Does the man in the cardboard box NEED to live in a castle? Nobody can honestly be on the right side of your argument, because by the very act of wanting, a man is seeking more than he "needs". You own a computer. Do you need it? You probably sleep in a bed. Do you need it? You probably eat and drink food beyond what you require to stay alive. Do you need it? Does that mean your wants are victimizing the less fortunate? You could grow your own farm and gorge yourself on corn and potatoes 24 hours a day. How would that be hurting anyone else. You see where I'm coming from here.

"I believe that there is enough for everyone to thrive and for nobody to starve, but as long as people take more than they need then there will be people going without. "

Once again, define "needs". So do you consider a factory owner who is very wealthy to be an exploiter of the "poor"? What about the fact that he is providing employment to many people which generates wealth for those employees which in turn stimulates the economy. The factory workers have free will to choose to stop working there and focus their efforts elsewhere. Don't you understand the concept of entrepeneurialism? Believe it or not, wealth does not magically appear in the bank accounts of the rich and famous. Granted, some are born into wealth, but the majority build from scratch like everyone else. As the fellow before was saying, everyone has upward mobility. It all depends on the initiative they take.

"A good example of somebody being rich would be a landlord. He makes his living by owning not just his own home, but owning the homes of many other people. There is no right to the ownership of somebody else's home. You only need one home, so why own more?"


Come on man. You make it seem like the people living in rented homes are all victims of the evil landlord. Perhaps people have reasons for renting a home instead of purchasing one. There is no right to ownership of somebody else's home? Why not. By the very virtue of the landlord purchasing these homes, he has the right to own them. What part of that don't you understand?? Once again, needs......Who says you need ONE home? Some people don't live in houses. Some live in tents and dumpsters. Some by choice, some because of circumstances in their life which have led them to poverty. To say that poverty is is caused by wealthy entrepenuers couldn't be farther from the truth. Nearly all the wealth in this country is initially GENERATED BY THE WEALTHY. Open your mind to the idea of unlimitted wealth. Once you do, you may begin to understand that it is ridiculous to place boundaries on the potential for wealth in anyones life. The world is too complex to say there is only so much potential for anything. There are far too many creative ways to utilize resources. Once a certain type of resource is used up, then the money and Research and Development will be focused to finding alternatives. Why do you think we still use so much oil? Because there are so many people making money off it. Not because we can't come up with an alternative. Yeah, Im starting to rant, so, ill stop now.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #883698 - 09/14/02 07:56 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

what did I say about 24 hours? you just made that up.

That's why I ASKED for clarification. You neglected to tell us what you think an individual's "needs" are. My question is, at what point do savings (wealth) stop being sufficient to merely provide "needs" and become "excess?" Is it when your bank account is greater than is required to meet your needs for 24 hours? For a month? For a year? For a decade? What is the determining factor?

A good example of somebody being rich would be a landlord. He makes his living by owning not just his own home, but owning the homes of many other people.

He doesn't own homes, he owns buildings. He can sell them, rent them out, let them sit empty, or tear them down.

Where did he get the buildings? Did he steal them? If so he is a criminal and must face the full penalty of the law. But if he built them or bought them, then they are HIS and he can do with them what he wants.

There is no right to the ownership of somebody else's home.

A tenant does not OWN the apartment he rents, anymore than he OWNS the car he rents.

You only need one home, so why own more?

You only need one car, so why own more? What is the point of starting a car rental company?

I am curious. What do you do for a living? Obviously you have never been involved in commerce.

I believe that there is enough for everyone to thrive and for nobody to starve, but as long as people take more than they need then there will be people going without.

You're expressing the same belief in slightly different terms. You seem to think that the REASON some people don't have enough is that others have too much. The only way this can possibly be true is if there is only so much stuff available to go around. Please explain to us how Michael Jackson's purchase of a new Mercedes this year takes food out of the mouths of a tribe of goatherds in sub-Saharan Africa.

That doesn't necessarily mean there are a fixed amount of resources, but there is only so much resources that are available in any economy.

Once again you are doing nothing more than using a different arrangement of words to denote the same CONCEPT. Please explain to us the difference between "a fixed amount of resources" and "so much resources that are available".

If you think I am wrong then why don't you tell me why it is wrong??? I won't stop believing what I believe until you can provide me with a more sensible alternative.

Resources qua resources are useless for human existence. Raw resources must be transformed into goods through productive human effort before they are of use. A pool of oil half a mile underground does nobody any good. A seam of iron-bearing ore buried under a mountain in Siberia is useless until the ore is discovered, extracted, refined, turned into pots and pans and delivered to those who will use them.

How are those who mined the ore responsible for people "doing without"? Or those who refined the ore into steel. Or those who turned the steel into a cooking pot. These people brought into existence something that didn't exist previously. They didn't take it from anyone else. They didn't take something from a fixed pie, thereby leaving everyone else with less, they made the pie LARGER. The money they made from trading the pots for money which they then used to buy their houses, food, and clothing, was not TAKEN from anyone. In a very real sense, it was CREATED by them.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Americans were the ones who coined the phrase "to MAKE money". Before the concept of capitalism was put into practice, everyone thought the same as you -- it is not possible to MAKE wealth, only to steal it from others. I live in the Dominican Republic, where the official language is Spanish. There are many French tourists here, too. It is common for both to use the phrase "to WIN money" when they speak English. As a matter of fact, in Spanish, there IS no phrase equivalent to "making money"... only "to WIN money" -- ganar dinero. Perhaps this is not surprising, what with the Spanish Conquest and all.

I can't teach you the concepts of the creation of wealth in a single post. But you can check a previous thread in this forum which goes into the subject in great detail. See:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=
Forum14&Number=570143&page=&view=&sb=&o=&fpart=1&vc=1

Sorry I couldn't make it clickable, but the "URL rename" function seems not to be working properly at the moment. Just remove the space between the lines and you'll have the correct link to a thread titled "The US is NOT Capitalist!" in which all these concepts and more are thrashed out by several contributors.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: bruisedBlue]
    #883704 - 09/14/02 08:00 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Excellent post, sir. I salute you.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #883729 - 09/14/02 08:13 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

You are missing the difference between charity and loans. America GIVES outright, with no necessity of repayment, billions of dollars as a GIFT.

Tell you what man. I'll send you 1 dollar as a gift for every thirteen dollars you send to me. Can't be fairer than that can I. See how long you last before you're starving.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #883756 - 09/14/02 08:37 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Tell you what man. I'll send you 1 dollar as a gift for every thirteen dollars you send to me. Can't be fairer than that can I. See how long you last before you're starving.

Let me try to dumb it down for you even more.

I loan you eleven dollars. You agree to pay me back thirteen dollars over the next seven years. At the same time, I GIVE you outright one dollar, and say "This is a gift. You don't have to repay it. Keep it."

So, you didn't receive ONE dollar from me, you received TWELVE DOLLARS from me -- eleven dollars as a loan, plus a dollar as a gift.

11 + 1 = 12

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #883925 - 09/15/02 06:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Mark says,

"Rights pertain to ACTIONS, not to RESULTS or OBJECTS. Any individual has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to feed himself and his dependents (always presuming, of course, that these actions do not violate the rights of others). But he does not have the right to force (either directly or through agents -- i.e. government) OTHERS to provide food to him."

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=right says:

"right- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.

"A just or legal claim or title."

They don't say anything about "actions", "results", or "objects".

It is not my argument that people have the right to persue adequate food. They have the right to receive adequate food.

Just like you have the right to publish your own words, and circulate them around town. You don't need to take any action to gain that right. It is "something that is due to you by law..."

And I believe that a person's right to liberty from poverty is granted to them by nature.

And let me define the right to poverty as I am arguing for it. 'the right to adequate means by which to live a reasonably healthy life.'

I believe that it is because of this right, that we have such a thing as a minimum wage, and free education.

"My position is that each individual is responsible for continuing his OWN existence. Note that I do not say that an individual may not CHOOSE to assist others. But the mere fact that any given individual exists does not make him RESPONSIBLE for the continued existence of others."

Sounds a bit Utipian. You are assuming that the means are available to anyone who wants them, and the only thing keeping the impoverished impoverished is lack of motivation.

Try selling that to an Ethiopian, and I'm sure he'd just look at you funny and then try to eat it.

"I was trying to express is that while it is true that all humans by their nature possess certain inalienable rights, it is only in a CIVILIZED society that they are left free to exercise those rights."

This is an unfortunate reality. That is why it is up to civlized societies like the United States to ensure that while our companies are setting up factories in foriegn lands, that they at LEAST pay the employees there enough to sustain a healthy lifestyle for themselves and their families.

"'If freedom is described as the right to do what you want so long as you don't step on the rights of others, than the uberwealthy are certainly NOT free to horde such a large number of assets...'

"Why not? Where is the logical connection?"

IF a right is defined as something that is due to a person nature,

AND IF it is indeed a right to have access to the bare necessities of survival,

AND IF the recourses would be available if not for the hording of the uberwealthy

AND IF one does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others

THEN the uberwealthy do not have the right to horde those assets.

"If every government of every nation in the world were to adopt AND FOLLOW scrupulously the principles laid out in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights, there would be no need for such an instituion."

Utopian.








--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #884636 - 09/16/02 12:06 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Senor Doobie writes:

"right- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

That definition is not quite accurate. It should more properly read "something that is ALLOWED to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature". For example, (in the case of a governmental body) the US government is permitted to apprehend and try in a court of law someone who steals from another, and to imprison him if he is found guilty. They have the RIGHT to do so. They are NOT allowed to scoop some random individual off the street for wearing a white hat, and shoot him. They do NOT have the right to do so.

As another example (in the case of an individual), a practitioner of karate has the right (is allowed) to do his katas in his backyard. He is not allowed (does not have the right) to kick to death a little kid walking past his yard.

They don't say anything about "actions", "results", or "objects".

Arresting, trying, and imprisoning an individual are actions. Practising karate is an action.

It is not my argument that people have the right to persue adequate food. They have the right to receive adequate food.

Receive adequate food FROM WHOM?

Why, from other PEOPLE, according to your definition of "rights". There can literally be no other answer. In other words, according to you, SOME people have the "right" to force OTHER people to provide them with food. But that can't possibly be correct, since as you pointed out, ALL men have equal inalienable rights. If this is true, then it follows that all are to be treated equally. If one person has the right to produce NO food, but another MUST produce enough food for two people, where is the equal treatment? The inescapable logical corollary to the statement "Everyone has the right to receive adequate food" is that NO ONE has the obligation to PRODUCE food.

By the way, I just went to my neighbor's place to ask for the food she owes me, and by coincidence she was on her way to my place to ask ME for the food I owed HER. We both decided to ask YOU for our food. You can deliver it in person, if you would like to enjoy our fine Caribbean weather.

Just like you have the right to publish your own words, and circulate them around town. You don't need to take any action to gain that right.

I don't need to take any actions to get the RIGHT to publish. That right is mine by nature. But in order to actually PUBLISH, I must take NUMEROUS actions. I must compose the words, obtain paper and ink, perform a series of actions to get the words onto the paper, and hand the papers to other individuals.

From the above statement of yours, the nature of your logical error is clear. You are equating the ACTION with the OBJECT, which is why you are arriving at a faulty conclusion. Yes, you have the right to EAT. No, you don't have the right to have the food you eat GIVEN to you. I am not denying that everyone has the right to eat, just as I am not denying that everyone has the right to publish.

Just because you are ALLOWED by your nature to do something does not mean you are able do it whenever you want. In fact, it is possible you may never get the opportunity to exercise a particular right. For example, you have the RIGHT to reproduce, but that doesn't guarantee you'll find a mate. You have the RIGHT to drive, but that doesn't mean the government must provide you a car. You have the RIGHT to express your opinions, but that doesn't mean the government must provide you a typewriter, a bullhorn, or even a crayon and some construction paper.

Even though you have the right to eat, in order to exercise that right you must first obtain something which is edible, just as even though you have the right to water-ski, you must first obtain a ski-boat and skis, and find a body of water on which to use them.

It is "something that is due to you by law..."

That phrase is inaccurate. It should read "something PERMITTED you by law..."

And I believe that a person's right to liberty from poverty is granted to them by nature.

I know you believe that. I'm trying to find WHY you believe that. Nature grants men nothing. Everything an individual requires to maintain his existence must be SEIZED from nature. If you don't believe me, try this experiment -- strip naked and walk ten miles into the Siberian tundra, then wait for your food delivery.

And let me define the right to poverty as I am arguing for it. 'the right to adequate means by which to live a reasonably healthy life.'

I presume you actually meant to say "the right to freedom from poverty". I ask again, WHO is obligated to provide the "adequate means" to you? If you get a serious kidney disease, WHO must donate a kidney to you? HOW is the donor to be selected? In a drought-stricken nation, with crop failures and widespread starvation, WHO will provide the food? WHERE will they get it?

I believe that it is because of this right, that we have such a thing as a minimum wage, and free education.

We have such things as minimum wage and free education TODAY (both are very recent developments) not by natural right, but by government fiat, backed by the threat of physical force (which is the only way an individual's rights can be violated). The irony is screamingly obvious -- the only way to fulfill these pseudo-rights is through the violation of real rights.

Sounds a bit Utipian.

Quite the reverse. In a Utopia, everything is effortless.

You are assuming that the means are available to anyone who wants them, and the only thing keeping the impoverished impoverished is lack of motivation. Try selling that to an Ethiopian, and I'm sure he'd just look at you funny and then try to eat it.

I assume no such thing. Sometimes the situation is such that survival is simply not possible, no matter how much effort is expended. Famine, disease, and hostile natural conditions kill people regularly.

This is an unfortunate reality. That is why it is up to civlized societies like the United States to ensure that while our companies are setting up factories in foriegn lands, that they at LEAST pay the employees there enough to sustain a healthy lifestyle for themselves and their families.

I'll let you in on another unfortunate reality. Before that foreign factory was built, the workers and their families had an even unhealthier lifestyle. Is it more physically demanding working in some of those factories than it is working in an office job in Iowa? Yep. Do they get paid less than a member of the Teamsters union? Yep. Is it miles better than what they had before? Yep.

Here's a question for you. Suppose a clothing company decides the negative publicity over third-world production facilities will hurt their business more than the lowered production costs would help it, so they decide to manufacture strictly in the United States, using union labor. The factory they were planning to build in Haiti never gets built. What happens to the Haitian laborer who is currently eating twigs and grubs to keep himself alive?

I live in the Dominican Republic, with Haiti across the border. I have first-hand knowledge of how the Dominican poor live, how the Haitian immigrants here live, and how those fortunate enough to obtain jobs in foreign-owned businesses live. Every time a new factory (referred to by the bleeding heart Liberals as "sweatshops") opens, there is intense jubilation in the community. The lineup for positions is endless. This is no undergrad bull session I'm referring to now, this is the real world, involving real people that I know personally. Any time you care to pay me a visit, I'd be happy to give you a tour.

IF a right is defined as something that is due to a person nature...

I'm cautiously with you so far, though the definition is ambiguous. Depends on what sense of "something" and "due" you are implying.

AND IF it is indeed a right to have access to the bare necessities of survival...

"Access"? There are plenty of places on the planet where there is no access to even that much. Faulty supposition.

AND IF the recourses would be available if not for the hording of the uberwealthy...

The Rolls Royce Bill Gates rides in on his way to the theater was not created at the expense of cropland in Ethiopia. This, therefore, is also a faulty supposition.

AND IF one does not have the right to infringe upon the rights of others...

One does not. Your understanding of RIGHTS, however, is faulty.

THEN the uberwealthy do not have the right to horde those assets.

The conclusion reached is incorrect because there are two faulty suppositions and one faulty definition in the chain of reasoning.

Utopian.

Less "Utopian" than some unified, benevolent global government -- a "centralized institution with influences of power"?

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: bruisedBlue]
    #884831 - 09/16/02 03:45 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

When it comes to needs, I think we all agree that the defined goal is a goal to live.  It doesn't need to be stated.  It is what scientists refer as "an inately ocurring thingamajiggy."  One could also make a case for a further definition which includes not only survival, but the production of a viable offspring.

So then what is "needed" is what an individual requires in order to survive.  Thoreau whittled it down pretty well, but I don't have Walden with me.  Basically it was down to something like food, water, protection from the elements, and an SUV.

For the man in the cardboard box, as long as it doesn't get too cold, he can live in a box without that, in itself, posing a threat to his survival.  Whether he can get a woman in there to produce a viable offspring with is a problem I'm sure he thinks about a lot.

I don't completely agree with MortMtroN's comment that one person having too much means that another won't have enough.  But I do agree that the process of ACQUISITION and ACCUMULATION--of property, products, wealth, resources--permitted as they are to go unregulated to the point where one person might have a billion times what is needed to live, has produced a serious imbalance of OPPORTUNITY, and therefore has in that way infringed on others' ability to get what they need, i.e. to live.

So even if you believe there will always be "enough", you still might question the SYSTEM, or PROCESS that allows for so few to gain so much of what is available so quickly, and wonder if that system might make it impossible for entire peoples to get their feet on the ground and maintain, for themselves, their own needs.

"So do you consider a factory owner who is very wealthy to be an exploiter of the "poor"? What about the fact that he is providing employment to many people which generates wealth for those employees which in turn stimulates the economy. The factory workers have free will to choose to stop working there and focus their efforts elsewhere."

The fact that he owns a factory and employs several people doesn't, in itself, make him exploitative.  Have a look around the world, and you will find two kinds of factories: satisfactories and unsatisfactories.  :smirk: 

While I have no doubt that many employers and factory owners have a fine sense of personal accountability towards their employees, you will also notice a tendency of the satisfactories to have stronger organization among the workers, generally in the form of a union.  Unsatisfactories are more likely to have no such benefit.  In fact, labor unionists and activists are constantly deprived the right to live and create viable offspring, all over the world.  Why?  Who has an interest vested in preventing these labor unions by murdering their organizers?

"As the fellow before was saying, everyone has upward mobility. It all depends on the initiative they take."

That sounds like it came straight from a Horatio Alger story.  It may seem plausible if we close one eye and squint through the other when viewing our world, but we can't continue to imply that the growing population of poor people worldwide is caused by an epidemic of laziness. 

 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #884940 - 09/16/02 05:06 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

I loan you eleven dollars. You agree to pay me back thirteen dollars over the next seven years.

earth calling pinky...earth calling pinky..

Listen pink, let me just explain how the real world works.

1) America installs a savage dictator in Africa.

2)The dictator asks for "aid" for "development" for his "poor people". This goes straight to the american corporations who set up in the african country to drain it's resources. The dictator takes his kickback.

3) Then comes the tricky time to pay the "loan" back. Guess who pays it. The people of the country who never saw a red cent of the loan in the first place.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Edited by Alex123 (09/16/02 05:08 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #885042 - 09/16/02 05:49 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Listen pink, let me just explain how the real world works.

1) America installs a savage dictator in Africa.


Well, Alex, why don't you name a few savage African dictators installed by America for those of us who don't understand how the real world works.

2)The dictator asks for "aid" for "development" for his "poor people". This goes straight to the american corporations who set up in the african country to drain it's resources. The dictator takes his kickback.

American corporations? Not always. Many projects in Africa are handled either in house or by European corporations. What about loans from France or Italy or Germany or Australia? Are American contractors employed on those projects? You are right about the government officials skimming large chunks of the money, though. I pointed that out in a previous post.

3) Then comes the tricky time to pay the "loan" back. Guess who pays it. The people of the country who never saw a red cent of the loan in the first place.

As money, no, they often don't. They do, however, get the benefit of whatever project the loan funded: electrical plants, irrigation projects, desalinization plants, hospitals, schools, etc. This presumes the project is ever completed, of course -- a naive presumption in many cases.

I am not arguing that developmental loans to emerging nations is as beneficial to the inhabitants of those nations as the proponents of these loans believe they are. Huge chunks of those loans do nothing more than line the pockets of whichever warlord has seized the reigns of power for the moment.

I was merely pointing out that your claim that for every dollar the US sends to Africa it receives thirteen back (or for every dollar they send to Africa they get sixteen POUNDS back, whichever ratio you pull out of your hat today) is inaccurate. The conflation of "loan" and "gift" conveys a false impression. I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume the mistake was out of honest ignorance rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #885103 - 09/16/02 06:20 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Primarily mark, I'd like to comment on how much I'm enjoying this debate.

Now, we will try to work out a definition to right that we can both live with.

"That definition is not quite accurate. It should more properly read "something that is ALLOWED to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature". For example, (in the case of a governmental body) the US government is permitted to apprehend and try in a court of law someone who steals from another, and to imprison him if he is found guilty. They have the RIGHT to do so. They are NOT allowed to scoop some random individual off the street for wearing a white hat, and shoot him. They do NOT have the right to do so."

I am extremely uncomfortable with the word "allowed" as used in this context. We are taught that people are born with rights. They are a gift from God, or from nature. I like the word "due" much better than "allowed" because "allowed" implies that rights are merely tolerated, and are not inalienable,

Unfortunately it seems that the US government agrees with you in a lot of cases, but I do not think that this is entirely in line with what the drafters of the Constitution had in mind, nor is it what the people who have fought for freedom through the times have interperated it to mean.

An example, let's take an 18-year-old black man living in Alabama during the early 1960's.

There is an election coming up and this man wants to exercise his right to vote. He goes down to his local voting booth and is turned away. He says "I have the constitutional right to cast my vote." The person behind the desk says "You certainly do. And all you have to do to exercise that right is to go up to one of 'em nigger-lovin states up North. We don't ALLOW that sort of thing down here."

In steps the federal government, and they say 'No, no, no. His right to vote is inalienable, and it will be made available to him HERE and everywhere in the United States.

And so he was granted what was due to him.

"Why, from other PEOPLE, according to your definition of 'rights'. There can literally be no other answer. In other words, according to you, SOME people have the 'right' to force OTHER people to provide them with food."

Okay, we are together so far.

"But that can't possibly be correct, since as you pointed out, ALL men have equal inalienable rights. If this is true, then it follows that all are to be treated equally."

There is a jump there. Because all people have certain inalienable rights, does NOT mean that all are to be treated equally. Only when it is an issue of our basic rights, is that the case.

"If one person has the right to produce NO food, but another MUST produce enough food for two people, where is the equal treatment?"

If it is possible for the person who needs the food to produce it himself, he should. If not, then he should be provided for by those who can. The equal treatment is that everybody eats.

"The inescapable logical corollary to the statement 'Everyone has the right to receive adequate food' is that NO ONE has the obligation to PRODUCE food."

Not only is this true, but it is also true that the government often pays farmers not to grow food to their full potential, to keep growing food profitable. That is sad as fuck. Wouldn't it be better if the government bought the surplus, and shipped it to the starving people of the world?

The argument right now seems to boil down to "what is a right?"

I can't argue with you further because we have different viewpoints to this.




--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #885108 - 09/16/02 06:22 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

I would like to ask about your Salvadorian neighbors, however.

The ones working in the factories.

Do they earn enough to provide reasonably healthy lifestyles for themselves and for their families within the Salvadorian economy?


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #885136 - 09/16/02 06:36 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

z


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Edited by Lallafa (02/24/10 09:09 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #885238 - 09/16/02 07:33 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

brief, my ass.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #885256 - 09/16/02 07:38 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

a bit long, but all true

its funny how you see pinky go on about how fair our market is, but never hear him talk about any negative effects


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #885704 - 09/16/02 12:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"why don't you name a few savage African dictators installed by America for those of us who don't understand how the real world works."



The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:

In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.




--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #886145 - 09/16/02 03:46 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa, I completely agree. It has been, and still is, the American Inquisition. A big game of monopoly that the world has to play.

Pinky, when you defend a person's right to have his millions that he "earned through honest means," it's this kind of activity that you aren't considering. You and I might come a lot closer to agreeing that a person is entitled to what he earns HONESTLY if only we could agree on what is truly honest.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: hongomon]
    #886163 - 09/16/02 03:52 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Yeah right?

He acts like the rich are actually morally people.

I don't think it is possible to be that rich and moral. Could be wrong but I'm willing to bet it isn't the standard.

Look how many people Gates stabbed in the back on his rise.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #886374 - 09/16/02 05:21 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Senor Doobie writes:

Primarily mark, I'd like to comment on how much I'm enjoying this debate.

Gracias, senor. Yo tambien.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the word "allowed" as used in this context.

I admit is not the PERFECT definition. That's the problem with dictionary definitions -- they favor concision over completeness. This is particularly true when it comes to philosophical concepts. After all, if human "rights" could be explained satisfactorily in a phrase of half a dozen words or so, why the necessity for the literally thousands of treatises on the subject? Still, I object even more strongly to defining "rights" as "SOMETHING which is DUE to a person".

We are taught that people are born with rights. They are a gift from God, or from nature. I like the word "due" much better than "allowed" because "allowed" implies that rights are merely tolerated, and are not inalienable.

A better word than either would be "recognized". I use the word "allowed" in the context of "permitted", or "not punished for exercising". etc. The reason I dislike "due" is that it implies it is something which must be GIVEN to an individual, when in fact the person has those rights by his nature. As you correctly note, rights are an inherent ATTRIBUTE of an individual, as is free will. In any case, the point is that "rights" refer to action, specifically FREEDOM of action, not to things.

In steps the federal government, and they say 'No, no, no. His right to vote is inalienable, and it will be made available to him HERE and everywhere in the United States. And so he was granted what was due to him.

Not exactly. He was not "granted" anything. What has occurred is that the federal government has prevented others from violating rights HE HAD ALL ALONG.

There is a jump there. Because all people have certain inalienable rights, does NOT mean that all are to be treated equally. Only when it is an issue of our basic rights, is that the case.

You've lost me here. Your second sentence seems to be a direct contradiction of the first. Is not your most BASIC right the freedom to act as you see best (always presuming your actions do not interfere with the right of others to act as THEY see best, of course)? For example, in my opinion it is best for me to put in enough hours each day to gather enough food for myself and my family, then use the rest of the hours of my waking time learning how to make a bow and arrow and how to plant crops so I can gather more food in less time.

If it is possible for the person who needs the food to produce it himself, he should.

Agreed.

If not, then he should be provided for by those who can.

Only if he can PERSUADE others to provide for him. His inability to provide for himself does not give him the right to initiate force against others. The ONLY time physical force is justified is in a RETALIATORY context. If someone initiates force against you, or threatens to do so (i.e. says "pay me $100 a week or I'll burn down your business), you have the right to react with force. But you don't have the right to INITIATE force, not even to obtain your daily bread.

The equal treatment is that everybody eats.

This is NOT "equal treatment". The treatment of those who make it possible for him to survive is unequal to the treatment he receives. They are subjected to force. He does no work (perhaps through no fault of his own, perhaps not) while others are forced to do EXTRA work. It is true that in the case of an incapacitated individual, it is not his fault that he cannot survive without the assistance of others. But it is no less true that it is not the fault of others that he is incapacitated.

Again, you are confusing RESULTS (everyone gets fed) with ACTIONS (some people are forced to act against their best interests).

...but it is also true that the government often pays farmers not to grow food to their full potential, to keep growing food profitable. That is sad as fuck. Wouldn't it be better if the government bought the surplus, and shipped it to the starving people of the world?

Actually, I don't know if this is still the case in 2002, but certainly the US government did this (buying up surplus and giving it away as foreign aid) on a regular basis for decades. This policy killed two birds with one stone -- kept the price of food artificially high, thus protecting marginal farmers from bankruptcy, and helped fulfill foreign aid quotas. In fact, a convincing case can be made that giving food is better than giving money. A starving refugee can't eat US greenbacks. More importantly, a dictator can more easily seize and stash money than he can seize thousands of tons of grain, convert it to money before it rots, and stash the money.

To quote the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, "Dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope." The same is true of food in a famine zone.

The argument right now seems to boil down to "what is a right?" I can't argue with you further because we have different viewpoints to this.

Believe it or not, I once held an almost identical viewpoint. It is a far from uncommon one these days. I blame my earlier stance on the appalling bias of the Canadian educational system. At the time I was going to school, Viet Nam was on TV every night, the Women's Lib movement was in full flower, the ecological movement was gaining momentum. Black Power was big, unions were at their peak, Che Guavera posters were as common in dorm rooms as books by Herman Hesse. A lot of my teachers were young, and those who weren't quite so young certainly TRIED hard to "be relevant".

The other thing to remember is this was in CANADA. It is difficult for Americans, even Americans who grew up in today's quasi-Socialist America, to realize just exactly how much MORE of a welfare state Canada is compared to the US. You think the government pokes its nose into every aspect of your life in the US of A? Man, you ain't seen NUTHIN' till you've lived a few years in the Great White North.

Sorry, I digress. The step-by-step history of my philosophical development is both boring and irrelevant. I just wanted to emphasize that I didn't come by my present beliefs casually. A lot of work and study went into it, and it's not complete yet. This is one reason I hang out here. Every now and then a really great post pops up that adds to my body of knowledge, and yes, even sometimes causes my to modify a previously-held belief.

I posted a pretty good explanation defending the metaphysical nature of human rights, validating them from first principles, in a previous thread. I'd prefer not to type it all in again from scratch if I can avoid it. Let me dig around in the archives for a bit and see if I can come up with a link. Hopefully my crummy third-world ISP will stop kicking me out every 3 or 4 minutes.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #886499 - 09/16/02 05:55 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa writes:

a bit long, but all true

Much of it is true, much of it is misrepresented, some of it is downright false. The section on the Dominican Republic, for one, is absolute bullshit.

I'm having an extremely difficult time with my internet connection tonight, but that is usually a temporary thing, so I hope to be able to post the REAL story of the US involvement shortly.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide links to the books I have read (some of which are in Spanish, of course), or the conversations I've had with Dominicans over the last fifteen years, but I once came across a detailed yet concise UNBIASED report from a source with no axe to grind in a google search. As a matter of fact, from some of the subtle phrasing of the wording of the history, I think it safe to say the author is less than enamored with US foreign policy. However, he at least had the honesty to report what actually happened. It fits precisely with what Dominicans have told me and what I have read on my own.

its funny how you see pinky go on about how fair our market is, but never hear him talk about any negative effects.

It's funny you don't remember our conversations in earlier posts in the thread "The United States is NOT Capitalist". I am no fan of the US government's meddling in the economy, as my posts in that thread make abundantly clear. How in the world can you accuse ME, possibly the most vocal advocate of REAL capitalism on this forum, of defending the quasi-fascist mishmash of rules and restrictions and subsidies and tariffs that choke the market, all promulgated by that bunch of chuckleheads in Washington?

I believe in criticizing the US for it's REAL faults, not for exaggerated or misrepresented or speculated or even outright FALSE incidents. There's plenty to criticize without making stuff up.

Either you have never actually read my posts or you believe that you can put one over on people who haven't.

Show some honesty, dude.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: hongomon]
    #886518 - 09/16/02 06:01 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

hongomon writes:

Pinky, when you defend a person's right to have his millions that he "earned through honest means," it's this kind of activity that you aren't considering.

That's a bold (and erroneous) assumption to make. I do consider this kind of activity, I am opposed to this kind of activity, and I don't believe a businessman who made his fortune through political pull has really earned his money honestly. Feel free to point to a SINGLE post of mind where I have defended government manipulation of the economy. Any one will do.

You and I might come a lot closer to agreeing that a person is entitled to what he earns HONESTLY if only we could agree on what is truly honest.

I can name dozens of wealthy people who came by their fortunes honestly. Can you name one?

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #886653 - 09/16/02 06:56 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Well, Alex, why don't you name a few savage African dictators installed by America for those of us who don't understand how the real world works.

Because you arn't going to learn anything that way. You have to educate yourself otherwise you learn nothing by me spoon feeding you.

As money, no, they often don't. They do, however, get the benefit of whatever project the loan funded

You are living in a dream world. Check out what benefit the orgoni people got from Shell oil in Nigeria.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #886656 - 09/16/02 06:58 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:

In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "Communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Good post Lallafa, but i think it's wasted on luvdem.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #886665 - 09/16/02 07:01 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Much of it is true, much of it is misrepresented, some of it is downright false. The section on the Dominican Republic, for one, is absolute bullshit.

Source? Are you really this moronic? Don't keep asking for sources and then conveniently forgetting to post them yourself.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #886951 - 09/16/02 11:05 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

In reply to:

Good post Lallafa, but i think it's wasted on luvdem.





You truly are a moron. I made one reply in this post where I said it would be nice to see a graph made from that list.
So how I found my way into your reply puzzles me. Frankly I've found this post quite interesting watching you "lefties" defending the indefensible. Still, interesting.

And Lallafa, is a 40 year old example the best you can do?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/11/99
Posts: 22,678
Loc: Trump Train
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #887337 - 09/17/02 04:37 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex,

Pinky said he'd be back to post more on the subject. Try reading his post instead of combing it for hypocrisy.

Pinky,

I think you might have missed my question about your Dominican neighbors (I think I may have called them Salvadorians), but regardless, I was curious as to whether those Dominicans who work in US-owned factories make enough money to feed themselves and their families.


--------------------
"America: Fuck yeah!" -- Alexthegreat

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day.”  -- Thomas Jefferson

The greatest sin of mankind is ignorance.

The press takes [Trump] literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally. --Salena Zeto (9/23/16)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #887436 - 09/17/02 05:31 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

So how I found my way into your reply puzzles me.

I am not surprised. No doubt a good deal of things puzzle you. Tying your shoelaces for example.

You asked for an example of the US installing dictators. Lallafa provided you with one. You then reject this and say "It's 40 years old". (Actually Mobutu was in power until recently) This is sadly typical of your responses. Cry out for "sources" until someone provides it when you reject it with utter nonsense or run away in fear.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #887519 - 09/17/02 06:11 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

my apologies for an unfair accusation.

however, i am prepared to debate further, the (insane) notion that most US intervention in foreign countries has somehow benefited the majority of the native population, or been an overall positive and moral force


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #888039 - 09/17/02 09:38 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Actually Shit For Brains... this is another example of your poor comprehension skills. I didn't ask that question. I believe it was pinky.

But that's OK. It's just another example of what an idiot you are.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: bruisedBlue]
    #888446 - 09/17/02 12:02 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"Define need. There are no NEEDS. There is only a need once a goal has been defined. For example, I have decided (or my instinct has for me) that I desire to live. Therefore I must nourish my body to stay alive. However, I do not NEED to live."

Everybody wants to live, and they have the right. So is starving people justifiable because they don't need to live, they only want to. How dare them want so much.

"Say someone lives in a carboard box. And someone else lives in a castle. Does the man in the cardboard box NEED to live in a castle?"

He has the right to the means to obtain decent food, clothing, and shelter. So unless he lives in a box by choice then he should be able to live somewhere else. So does the man living in the castle need to live there? Does he have extra rooms that he isn't using? maybe for a guy that has to sleep in a cardboard box.

"You own a computer. Do you need it?"

No I don't, This is a shared computer. I do use it though, which means I have some say over what happens to it. Since I use it, that makes it mine for all practical purposes. I did have an extra computer that I gave away because I didn't use it. That meant I didn't need it. So I forfieted my ownership of it to somebody who would make better use of it.

"You probably sleep in a bed. Do you need it?"

I use it, so yes. I also have a couch, which I use, but not all the time. So Sometimes I let somebody sleep there if they need to, since I am not using it, I don't need it.

"You probably eat and drink food beyond what you require to stay alive. Do you need it?"

Yes sometimes I do, but I have had extra food from my garden, that since I wasn't using, I gave it away. JUst a few days ago I gave away tomatoes that I wasn't using, therefore I didn't need them.

"could grow your own farm and gorge yourself on corn and potatoes 24 hours a day. How would that be hurting anyone else. "

It is if other people need that land to grow food that they need. While I am eating my produce like a glutton. Land is a valuable resource, and there is only so much of it. Much of the exploitation that happens to third world countries occurs because land becomes privatized and the people end up being coerced into working for the corporation that privatized it. Force isn't the only way that peoples rights are taken away. There is also coersion.

"What about the fact that he is providing employment to many people which generates wealth for those employees which in turn stimulates the economy."

It doesn't stimulate the economy if the workers are underpaid. Trickle down economics don't work. People working for a corporation usually do so because the means of production are privatized, so in order to produce goods in order to trade his labor for the things he needs he has to work for a corporation. That means that the corporation, who owns the means of production, gets all the say over what is a fair price for a workers labor. The laborer has no negotiation. This is why unions are formed, to demand a fair price for labor

"Don't you understand the concept of entrepeneurialism? "

Yes I do and it is entrepeneuralism that causes the worker to have little option to work somewhere else, because he could go to another factory, but the pay would be reletively the same.

"Believe it or not, wealth does not magically appear in the bank accounts of the rich and famous."

No, it isn't, they have to hire workers to make goods so that they can make money. Because they had enough initial investment capital to purchase a factory, they now own the means of production, and therefore they keep most of the profits. But shouldn't the workers in the factory be considered shareholders of the company, entitled to an equal portion, since the owner of the factory is getting tax breaks to run his business. That is the public pays the cost of production, through taxes and labor, yet the profits are privatized.

"Some people don't live in houses. Some live in tents and dumpsters. Some by choice, some because of circumstances in their life which have led them to poverty."

A good example of this would be a person that gets laid off from his job because they are moving the factory to Mexico to get cheaper labor. The person then cannot find another job and cannot afford to pay the rent and gets evicted by the guy that owns HIS home.

" Nearly all the wealth in this country is initially GENERATED BY THE WEALTHY."

It is generated by the people that work for the wealthy.

Edited by MortMtroN (09/17/02 05:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #888521 - 09/17/02 12:24 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"That's why I ASKED for clarification. You neglected to tell us what you think an individual's "needs" are. My question is, at what point do savings (wealth) stop being sufficient to merely provide "needs" and become "excess?" Is it when your bank account is greater than is required to meet your needs for 24 hours? For a month? For a year? For a decade? What is the determining factor?"

As I probably clarified in my last post to BlueBruiser, an individual needs what he uses to produce, his tools, his food, clothing, shelter, and his transportation. I don't own anything that I don't use that I am not prepared to give away to somebody else who needs it (would use it).

"He doesn't own homes, he owns buildings. He can sell them, rent them out, let them sit empty, or tear them down. "

If somebody lives there, how is it not a home?

"Where did he get the buildings? Did he steal them? If so he is a criminal and must face the full penalty of the law. But if he built them or bought them, then they are HIS and he can do with them what he wants."

If he is not using them for any other purpose than making money, then he doesn't rightfully own it. I don't give a damn about the law, landlordship is an unethical means of making a living or two.

"A tenant does not OWN the apartment he rents, anymore than he OWNS the car he rents."

He owns the apartment more rightfully than the landlord does. If he uses it and the landlord doesn't, then the tenant is the rightful owner.

"You only need one car, so why own more? What is the point of starting a car rental company?"

I can think of circumstances to own more than one vehicle such as having a van for moving band equipment and having a car for moving people, and having a motorcycle for moving one person. But if you have two cars and one just sits parked all the time it's probably a good idea to sell it or give it away.

The point of starting a car rental company is to supply transportation to people who travel a lot. Or for temporary transportation for people getting their car fixed. A tenant very rarely just lives somewhere temporarily, it is their home.

I am a laborer, that is all there is to it. I work for whoever will hire me and I have no control over the wage I earn.


"Once again you are doing nothing more than using a different arrangement of words to denote the same CONCEPT. Please explain to us the difference between "a fixed amount of resources" and "so much resources that are available". "

here is my answer: "Resources qua resources are useless for human existence. Raw resources must be transformed into goods through productive human effort before they are of use."

and it is the laborer that does that job, and who doesn't get a fair share of the profit made from producing those resources.

"How are those who mined the ore responsible for people "doing without"? "

They aren't, they are the ones that are doing without. Mine workers were almast all underpaid until they organized and formed unions to demand their fair share.

"How are those who mined the ore responsible for people "doing without"? Or those who refined the ore into steel. Or those who turned the steel into a cooking pot. These people brought into existence something that didn't exist previously. They didn't take it from anyone else. They didn't take something from a fixed pie, thereby leaving everyone else with less, they made the pie LARGER. The money they made from trading the pots for money which they then used to buy their houses, food, and clothing, was not TAKEN from anyone. In a very real sense, it was CREATED by them."

and they were most likely being underpaid to do it, unless of course they are union workers who have demanded their rightfully fair share. So why does the big corporation get all the profit while the real workers struggle for their daily bread? The workers are being exploited which isn't too different than theft.

Edited by MortMtroN (09/17/02 05:20 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #888550 - 09/17/02 12:31 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"It is generated by the people that work for the wealthy."

Exactly.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #888610 - 09/17/02 12:48 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"First of all, 1% of Americans do not own 50% of America's assets. For that matter, 1% of Americans don't even own 50% of all America's CURRENCY. Anyone who states this as a FACT will have to provide a RELIABLE source to back this claim. Links to some nutjob at rense.com don't count."


now read this:
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/L-overclass.html
:frown:


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #888620 - 09/17/02 12:50 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)



--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #888695 - 09/17/02 01:21 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"In any case, the point is that "rights" refer to action, specifically FREEDOM of action, not to things."

So how does a landlord or anybody for that matter, righfully own something

Edited by MortMtroN (09/17/02 01:28 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #889489 - 09/17/02 07:20 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

As I probably clarified in my last post to BlueBruiser, an individual needs what he uses to produce, his tools, his food, clothing, shelter, and his transportation.

And how does he obtain tools, food, clothing, shelter, and transportation? With money. My question is, how much money does he have to have before he is considered rich? Enough to buy all the tools, food, clothing, shelter, and transportation he and his dependents will use in the next 24 hours? Or in the next 24 days? The next 24 months? The next 24 years? An approximate answer will do.

If he is not using them for any other purpose than making money, then he doesn't rightfully own it.

Does this hold true for all means of production, or only for housing? Note that a dwelling is not even a means of production.

I don't give a damn about the law, landlordship is an unethical means of making a living or two.

What is someone to do who doesn't have the skills and/or tools and materials to build their own home? Where are they to live?

He owns the apartment more rightfully than the landlord does. If he uses it and the landlord doesn't, then the tenant is the rightful owner.

But the landlord DOES use it. He uses it to make a living by renting it to tenants who need a place to live. That same landlord may also own an office building. He rents the offices space to businesses who need an office. He may also own a warehouse. He rents it to businesses who need space in which to store their products. Etc.

The point of starting a car rental company is to supply transportation to people who travel a lot. Or for temporary transportation for people getting their car fixed.

Actually, the correct answer is, "The point of starting a car rental company is to make money." Sorry to have to thrown a trick question at you.

I am a laborer, that is all there is to it. I work for whoever will hire me and I have no control over the wage I earn.

What do you do when no one is hiring? How do you keep yourself alive?

here is my answer: "Resources qua resources are useless for human existence. Raw resources must be transformed into goods through productive human effort before they are of use."
and it is the laborer that does that job, and who doesn't get a fair share of the profit made from producing those resources.


If the laborer feels he is being exploited, why doesn't he simply obtain resources on his own, and produce goods himself, and fill in the hundreds of government forms required to prove his goods meet government regulations, and buy the required licenses, and pay the required taxes, then sell and deliver the goods himself, and thereby keep 100% of the sale price of the goods?

pinky




--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #889505 - 09/17/02 07:26 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

So how does a landlord or anybody for that matter, righfully own something

By performing the necessary actions to produce the thing (i.e. build it) or by trading (which is an action) something else (usually but not always currency) for an already produced thing.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #889564 - 09/17/02 07:49 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Senor Doobie writes:

I was curious as to whether those Dominicans who work in US-owned factories make enough money to feed themselves and their families.

Yes, they do. As a matter of fact, they make more than enough to do so. And I must point out that Dominican families are BIG families. Making babies is the national pastime.

The new government here made some changes to the conditions under which foreign companies can operate. As a result, early this year a number of companies shut down their operations here. Some were American, but most were Asian... a few from Hong Kong, the rest from Taiwan.

The closing of these businesses left 8,000 Dominicans unemployed. Listin Diario, the most popular daily newspaper in the country, ran a series of articles about the closures, and pointed out that not only were 8,000 factory workers now jobless, but also estimated that before the end of the year another 14,000 people would be unemployed. The 14,000 referred to were those who worked in locally owned businesses patronized exclusively (or nearly exclusively) by the 8,000 factory workers and their dependents, which would now go out of business due to lack of customers.

So, not only were those who worked in the foreign factories making enough to support themselves and their families, they had enough disposable income to support a "sub-industry" which provided an additional 1.75 jobs per factory worker.

I don't know how accurate Listin Diario's estimates are. Maybe the real figure is lower than 14,000, maybe it is higher. I do know that the economists providing those estimates have had a lot of practice at this exercise, so I would guess that the estimates are probably not off by a lot.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #889781 - 09/17/02 10:22 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

As promised, here is how the American intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 came about. First, let's look at what Lallafa's source has to say:

In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-Communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought " showcase of democracy " that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
A number of American officials and congresspeople expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.


So far, all of this is true. Or at least close enough not to quibble over, except for the phrase "modest nationalization of business". Many Dominicans I have spoken to say there was nothing "modest" about Bosch's nationalization plans at all. But from here on, the author deliberately misrepresents what happened.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.

Right. Just as they discouraged Castro with a frown. *sarcasm*

This is the standard "heads I win, tails you lose" approach of those critical of the US. If the US takes action (tries to prevent a change of government) it is castigated for interfering with the internal politics of a sovereign state (this is expressly forbidden by the UN charter, by the way). On the other hand, if it follows the UN rules and keeps its hands off, it is criticized for allowing the bad guys to seize power. Textbook example of hypocrisy.

Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

The troops stabilized the country and allowed free elections to be held. At that time, it was the most scrupulously fair election that had ever been held in Latin America, with scrutineers from several OAS (Organization of American States) countries supervising it -- specifically Brazil, Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Paraguay and Costa Rica. Bosch was one of the candidates. He lost, fair and square, to Balaguer. As a matter of fact, he lost every other time he ran, too. He died earlier this year, as did Balaguer.

I won't bother posting everything about this incident from http://www.countryreports.org/history/dominhist.htm here in this post. Those interested in more details can browse the site at their leisure. But here are a few snips that are relevant:

"The Bosch administration was very much an oddity in Dominican history up to that point: a freely elected, liberal, democratic government that expressed concern for the welfare of all Dominicans, particularly those of modest circumstances, those whose voices had never really been heard before in the National Palace. The 1963 constitution separated church and state, guaranteed civil and individual rights, and endorsed civilian control of the military. These and other changes, such as land reform, struck conservative landholders and military officers as radical and threatening, particularly when juxtaposed against three decades of somnolent authoritarianism under Trujillo. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church also resented the secular nature of the new constitution, in particular its provision for legalized divorce. The hierarchy, along with the military leadership and the economic elite, also feared communist influence in the republic, and they warned of the potential for "another Cuba." The result of this concern and opposition was a military coup on September 25, 1963."

"The coup effectively negated the 1962 elections by installing a civilian junta, known as the Triumvirate, dominated by the UCN."

***Pinky notes: Even the installation of puppet civilians would not have occurred if not for US pressure. From http://fuentes.csh.udg.mx/CUCSH/Sincronia/dominican.html

"In September of 1963, the military overthrew Bosch. He went into exile in Puerto Rico. When news of the coup reached Washington, President Kennedy was highly disturbed. The President stopped all U.S. aid and withdrew his ambassador. After several months of U.S. pressure, military leaders in the Dominican Republic decided to establish a civilian Triumvirate. Kennedy, disillusioned with the prospects for democracy and the progress of the Alliance, decided to recognize the new government." ***

Okay... back to the story:

"The initial head of the Triumvirate, Emilio de los Santos, resigned on December 23 and was replaced by Donald Reid Cabral. The Triumvirate never succeeded in establishing its authority over competing conservative factions both inside and outside the military; it also never convinced the majority of the population of its legitimacy. The widespread dissatisfaction with Reid and his government, coupled with lingering loyalties to Bosch, produced a revolution in April 1965."

"The vanguard of the 1965 revolution, the perredeistas (members of the PRD) and other supporters of Bosch, called themselves Constitutionalists (a reference to their support for the 1963 constitution). The movement counted some junior military officers among its ranks. A combination of reformist military and aroused civilian combatants took to the streets on April 24, seized the National Palace, and installed Rafael Molina Ure?a as provisional president. The revolution took on the dimensions of a civil war when conservative military forces, led by army general El?as Wess?n y Wess?n, struck back against the Constitutionalists on April 25. These conservative forces called themselves Loyalists. Despite tank assaults and bombing runs by Loyalist forces, however, the Constitutionalists held their positions in the capital; they appeared poised to branch out and to secure control of the entire country."

"On April 28, the United States intervened in the civil war. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered in forces that eventually totaled 20,000, to secure Santo Domingo and to restore order. Johnson had acted in the stated belief that the Constitutionalists were dominated by communists and that they therefore could not be allowed to come to power. The intervention was subsequently granted some measure of hemispheric approval by the creation of an OAS-sponsored peace force, which supplemented the United States military presence in the republic. An initial interim government was headed by Trujillo assassin Imbert; H?ctor Garc?a Godoy assumed a provisional presidency on September 3, 1965. Violent skirmishes between Loyalists and Constitutionalists went on sporadically as, once again, elections were organized."

*** Pinky notes: Although the Constitutionalists had some Communist elements, they were not the dominant force, contrary to Lyndon Johnson's belief at the time. From http://fuentes.csh.udg.mx/CUCSH/Sincronia/dominican.html

"Although there were Communist involved in the revolt, it is important to note that they were only one faction in a large group of organizations determined to reinstate Jaun Bosch. It is also important to recognize that of the three Communist groups in the Dominican Republic only the 14 June (1J4) movement was Castro oriented. The leaders and most of the participants in the Dominican Revolt were anti-Communist or non-Communist." ***

Back to the story:

"A fractious campaign ensued between the country's two leading political figures: Bosch and Balaguer. Bosch's appeal was tempered by fear; many Dominicans felt that his reelection would rekindle the violence of April 1965. This trepidation aided Balaguer, who also appealed to conservative voting sectors such as peasants, women (considered to be more religious than men), and businesspeople. Balaguer thus won handily, garnering 57 percent of the vote in balloting held July 1, 1966. His Reformist Party (Partido Reformista--PR) also captured majorities in the Congress. "

One final comment from http://fuentes.csh.udg.mx/CUCSH/Sincronia/dominican.html --

"The most important outcome that clearly falls in the winner column is the return of democracy to the Dominican Republic. Perhaps it was democracy through default but nonetheless the Dominican people were able to elect their leader on 1 June 1966. Balaguer and Bosch both returned home and faced each other off at the ballot box. Balaguer was the undisputed winner with 57% of the vote."

As you can tell from the phrasing used, neither author really approved of the US intervention. However, both grudgingly admit that the intervention had the desired result: those who had overthrown a democratically elected government had been ousted, a bloody civil war had been cut short, and the Dominican people once again had a democratically elected government of their own choosing.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #890306 - 09/18/02 04:43 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Sorry man but anyone who says Joachim Balaguer had anything to do with democracy is living in a dream world. Trujillo was one of the most monstrous tyrants in history and Balaguer was his right hand man. His regime was characterised by mass murder, rounding up protestors and summary executions of political opponents.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Xlea321]
    #890664 - 09/18/02 08:13 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Alex123 writes:

Sorry man but anyone who says Joachim Balaguer had anything to do with democracy is living in a dream world.

Sigh. What part of the democratic process don't you understand? The man was elected by the Dominican people. SIX TIMES between 1966 and 1994. He didn't gain power by a coup, he was ELECTED. And re-elected. And RE-ELECTED.

Having said that, I personally think Balaguer was a jerk, and I never understood his appeal. I think the Dominican people were mistaken to elect him so many times. I certainly never voted for him, and was delighted to see him retire. The president who followed him, Leonel Fernandez, was in my opinion the best this country has seen yet, and I was not a happy camper to see him leave. The current president is a buffoon. But much as I disagreed with Balaguer's policies, I cannot deny that he was elected democratically.

The point, my dear Alex, is not that the Dominican people elected someone whose politics you (or I) disagreed with, the point is that he was ELECTED. Repeatedly.

Both Juan Bosch and Balaguer died in the last year, Balaguer just a couple of months ago. I happened to be in the capital, Santo Domingo, the day of his funeral. It was a madhouse. There was such a genuine outpouring of grief throughout the entire nation it was amazing. It was really something to witness -- it was as if Elvis had died or something. The funeral procession started at 10:00 am, and they finally managed to get the coffin in the ground at 2:00 am. The entire nation shut down. Literally millions of people turned out to pay their respects, even though Balaguer had been retired since 1996.

Dominicans take their politics VERY seriously. Voter turnout is always very high. This is a nation whose history had consisted of colonial governors and dictator after dictator for more than four and a half centuries, so now that they finally CAN vote, you bet your ass they DO vote. You can also bet your ass they are grateful to the United States (and the OAS) for preserving their right to vote.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #891049 - 09/18/02 11:29 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa, I don't get it. I thought the reason you posted those two links was to provide a reliable source for the claim that 1% of Americans own 50% of America's assets.

I read through both of them (and what a task that was -- those suckers are LONG, especially the first one) and found nowhere in either of them any reference to the proportion of American assets owned by anyone. The closest thing I saw to such a reference was the completely unsupported claim in the first link that "In 1975, the richest 1 percent owned 22 percent of America?s wealth. By 1992, they would nearly double that, to 42 percent."

By the way, when I said "reliable", I meant "at least arguably quasi-official". Something like US census figures, or United Nations income distribution studies, or Federal Reserve statistics or European Community international economic analyses or compiled figures from the Organization of Mortgage Providers or something similar, not the ravings of someone intent on convincing his readers the CIA is a tool of the Knights of Malta.

I presume you read the information in the links you post here. You recently posted this link: http://wsws.org/articles/2000/jun2000/lec1-j05.shtml

from which I paste the following quote:

"The number of billionaires in the United States alone has increased from 13 in 1982 to 149 in 1996 and has increased since then."

Didn't this number tip you off? If there are only a couple of hundred billionaires in the US, the richest of whom is Bill Gates at less than $60 billion (and let's not forget that virtually all of his "wealth" is not hard currency, it is shares whose actual worth varies considerably over the course of a year) and the least rich of whom has one billion dollars, clearly there is no possible way Kangas's claim could be even close to the truth.

Since Mr. Steven Kangas' figures are sheer fantasy, let's do the math ourselves. 1% of Americans equals 2.82 million people. What is the combined net worth of those people? From : http://www.us.cgey.com/news/current_news.asp?ID=240

"There were 2,100,000 high net worth individuals (individuals with a net worth of US $1 million or more) in the United States at the end of 2001, up slightly compared to the previous year, according to Cap Gemini Ernst & Young and Merrill Lynch, which today published the 2002 World Wealth Report."

"The number of HNWIs in North America rose 1.8% to 2.22 million individuals over the past year," said Mr. Martin. The value of their combined wealth grew 1.7% to US$7.6 trillion."

Note that this figure of 7.6 trillion refers to ALL of North America -- Canada, USA, and Mexico. The number of HNWIs in the US alone was 2.1 million, so the value of the combined net worth of AMERICAN HNWIs must therefore be less than 7.48 trillion. How much less? I don't know. For the sake of argument let's be extremely generous and go with 7.3 trillion.

We now have to add the wealth of the remaining 720,000 Americans (2.82 million - 2.1 million) from our top 1%. Since each of them has a net worth of less than 1 million dollars, the total of THEIR combined net worth MUST be less than 720 billion. How much less? I don't know. Let's be extremely generous and call it 700 billion (0.7 trillion).

Therefore, the combined NET WORTH (not the ANNUAL income, note, but TOTAL NET WORTH) of the 2.82 million wealthiest individuals in the United States is AT MOST US$ 8 trillion.

That's a LOT of money, isn't it? Damn skippy! But it isn't anywhere even CLOSE to being 50% of the assets of the United States.

The annual GDI (Gross Domestic Income) of the US in the year 2001 alone was just over 9 trillion dollars (annual per capita INCOME of $32,000 x 282 million). Note that this is not the NET WORTH of the United States, it is not the sum total of all the ASSETS in the United States -- far from it. This is merely the net INCOME in dollars of all United States residents for ONE SINGLE YEAR. I was unable to find a site that gave a figure of the combined assets of the United States. I seriously doubt it is possible to even approximate such a figure. How can you accurately add up the real worth of every house, factory, vehicle, water treatment plant, hydro dam, work of art, television set, bicycle, refrigerator, computer, and deck of playing cards in a nation of 282 million people? Whatever that enormous figure is, clearly it is many many times higher than US $16 trillion (8 trillion x 2).

Conclusion: not only do the wealthiest 1% of Americans own less than 50% of America's ASSETS, they own less than eleven months worth of America's yearly INCOME. That, my socialist friend, is FACT.

Once again, a few seconds of Google search and a few minutes of grade school arithmetic blows another bogus claim completely out of the water.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #891073 - 09/18/02 11:40 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

The wealthy have always used many methods to accumulate wealth, but it was not until the mid-1970s that these methods coalesced into a superbly organized, cohesive and efficient machine. After 1975, it became greater than the sum of its parts, a smooth flowing organization of advocacy groups, lobbyists, think tanks, conservative foundations, and PR firms that hurtled the richest 1 percent into the stratosphere.

The origins of this machine, interestingly enough, can be traced back to the CIA. This is not to say the machine is a formal CIA operation, complete with code name and signed documents. (Although such evidence may yet surface, and previously unthinkable domestic operations such as MK-ULTRA, CHAOS and MOCKINGBIRD show this to be a distinct possibility.) But what we do know already indicts the CIA strongly enough. Its principle creators were Irving Kristol, Paul Weyrich, William Simon, Richard Mellon Scaife, Frank Shakespeare, William F. Buckley, Jr., the Rockefeller family, and more. Almost all the machine's creators had CIA backgrounds.

During the 1970s, these men would take the propaganda and operational techniques they had learned in the Cold War and apply them to the Class War. Therefore it is no surprise that the American version of the machine bears an uncanny resemblance to the foreign versions designed to fight communism. The CIA's expert and comprehensive organization of the business class would succeed beyond their wildest dreams.

How did this alliance start? The CIA has always recruited the nations elite: millionaire businessmen, Wall Street brokers, members of the national news media, and Ivy League scholars. During World War II, General "Wild Bill" Donovan became chief of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the forerunner of the CIA. Donovan recruited so exclusively from the nations rich and powerful that members eventually came to joke that "OSS" stood for "Oh, so social!"

Another early elite was Allen Dulles, who served as Director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Rockefeller empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels. He was also a board member of the J. Henry Schroeder Bank, with offices in Wall Street, London, Zurich and Hamburg. His financial interests across the world would become a conflict of interest when he became head of the CIA. Like Donavan, he would recruit exclusively from societys elite.


do you deny any of the above claims


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #891077 - 09/18/02 11:44 AM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa, I don't get it. I thought the reason you posted those two links was to provide a reliable source for the claim that 1% of Americans own 50% of America's assets.

i posted it to show that power breeds power, and there is, in fact, a ruling elite.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #891131 - 09/18/02 12:14 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Oh, NOW I get it! Even though you first posted an absurd "statistic" as fact, then posted those anti-CIA links in answer to my challenge to support your "fact" (even going so far as to reproduce my challenge word for word just so I could not possibly misunderstand that the links would support your claim), the REAL reason you provided those links was "to show that power breeds power, and there is, in fact, a ruling elite." Well, DUH!

Someone less charitable than myself would say the real reason you posted the links was to change the topic entirely since you knew you'd been caught red-handed disseminating demonstrably false statistics.

Why won't you admit that you just accepted Kangas's statement uncritically? I never believed you just pulled the number out of the air, I knew all along you had come across that number somewhere and just presumed it was accurate. No big deal, man, it happens to the best of us from time to time. I was just happy to be able to set you straight.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #891170 - 09/18/02 12:40 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

lallafa writes:

do you deny any of the above claims

At first glance, I see no reason to dispute his claim that various members of the CIA once worked for financial institutions or vice versa. I will, however, require a lot of convincing before I can accept that the wealth of the richest 1% of Americans is due to CIA activity.

Given Mr. Kangas's demonstrated inability to perform sixth grade arithmetic, I don't think it unreasonable to question his conclusions on matters of commerce.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #891265 - 09/18/02 01:52 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

the statistics are not exact, but they are close enough

and for the record, the first numbers posted were made up. i should have stated that they were my estimate, a representation of the polarization.

there is no need to research what i already know: a very small group has a shitload and everyone else has much less.

"I will, however, require a lot of convincing before I can accept that the wealth of the richest 1% of Americans is due to CIA activity."

yet you admit that the cia has played a huge role in the "success" of us corporations, especially overseas? and you also admit that the cia was born out of the richest of the rich?

i am not trying to change the topic.

i am trying to show you that a product of the capitalist system that is currently implemented is the accumulation of VAST amounts of wealth into the hands of members of the government

in short, the rich end up controlling the government, and influencing it in a way that allows them to accumulate MORE wealth.

are we in agreement that this has happened?

i am not trying to convert you to socialism.

i think we are actually in agreement: the current system is very fucked up and in need of serious reform


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #892215 - 09/18/02 09:16 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa writes:

the statistics are not exact, but they are close enough

Not only are they not "close enough", they're not even within an order of magnitude. Perhaps not even within TWO orders of magnitude.

and for the record, the first numbers posted were made up.

Oh. I must admit I'm surprised. I thought you had just taken Kangas's claim and pumped it up a bit.

yet you admit that the cia has played a huge role in the "success" of us corporations, especially overseas?

The CIA has undoubtedly managed to prevent some (but by no means all) property of US corporations overseas from being seized, yes. Exactly how "huge" an effect that has had on the success of those corporations is unknowable. They also undoubtedly managed to outbribe the Soviets in a number of cases. Again, trying to guess how "huge" an effect that has had on the success of American corporations is an exercise in futility.

and you also admit that the cia was born out of the richest of the rich?

No sir, I do not. Bill Donovan was not one of the "richest of the rich". Allan Dulles, though undeniably wealthier than Donovan, was hardly one of the "richest of the rich" either.

i am trying to show you that a product of the capitalist system that is currently implemented is the accumulation of VAST amounts of wealth into the hands of members of the government

You can call what the US government does "capitalism" till you're blue in the face, and you'd still be wrong. You just can't seem to grasp that the government outrages you object to are the very ANTITHESIS of capitalism. I honestly don't know why I bother to keep correcting you. I guess it's so some reader new to the forum won't swallow your misconceptions without at least looking in his Economics 101 text to see what capitalism really is.

I shake my head in wonderment whenever I see you accuse others of being close-minded and of misrepresenting Marx when it is so glaringly obvious that you have never read even a one paragraph DEFINITION of capitalism in a high school textbook let alone an essay by a capitalist author. Can we say "hypocrisy"?

in short, the rich end up controlling the government, and influencing it in a way that allows them to accumulate MORE wealth.
are we in agreement that this has happened?


Of course it has happened. We disagree about WHY it has happened. I say it is because the government has seized power over the economy in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You say it is because the government hasn't yet seized ENOUGH power over the economy.

i am not trying to convert you to socialism.

That's wise. I'm not trying to convert you to capitalism.

i think we are actually in agreement: the current system is very fucked up and in need of serious reform

The current situation is indeed fucked up. The reforms you espouse will make it even more fucked up.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #892252 - 09/18/02 09:40 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"You can call what the US government does "capitalism" till you're blue in the face, and you'd still be wrong. "

"Of course it has happened. We disagree about WHY it has happened. I say it is because the government has seized power over the economy in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights"

tell me pinky, when the us was "almost purely capitalist" (your definition), did the rockafeller family accumulate gigantic amounts of wealth? did the rockefeller family influence the US government?


your model of pure capitalism, the one you advocate, began the polarization of wealth long before the liberals came in to ruin your capitalist fun

"No sir, I do not. Bill Donovan was not one of the "richest of the rich". Allan Dulles, though undeniably wealthier than Donovan, was hardly one of the "richest of the rich" either."

the cia has always had ties to people with large amounts of wealth
the rockefeller family, for example.

it doesnt take a genius to see that much of the cia intervention in the past was serving the interests of the rich

and pinky, you are welcome to post some of your own numbers.

i would be surprised if they are much different from my original estimate.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Lallafa]
    #892304 - 09/18/02 10:12 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

Lallafa writes:

tell me pinky, when the us was "almost purely capitalist" (your definition), did the rockafeller family accumulate gigantic amounts of wealth?

Yes. Did they do so with no favors from government? Arguable.

did the rockefeller family influence the US government?

At the time they were accumulating their wealth or after they had already done so? The Rockefeller dynasty has been around for over a century. But anyway...

Did they try to persuade others to elect candidates of their choosing? Yes. Did they try to get those candidates to pass legislation favorable to their interests? Yes. What's your point?

your model of pure capitalism, the one you advocate, began the polarization of wealth long before the liberals came in to ruin your capitalist fun

If by "polarization of wealth" you mean that some people accumulated more wealth than others, I won't deny that this is possible under Capitalism. It is of course also possible under despotism, fascism, socialism, and communism. There are numerous examples of ultra-wealthy and ultra-poor in all of those socio-economic systems.

the cia has always had ties to people with large amounts of wealth

That's not what you asked. You asked if I admitted that the CIA was "born out of the richest of the rich". It wasn't. Having "ties to people with large amounts of wealth" is NOT the same thing at all. The Catholic church "has ties with" wealthy people. So does the Kiwanis club.

and pinky, you are welcome to post some of your own numbers.

I'm crushed, though not surprised. I ALREADY posted my own numbers. REAL numbers backed by REAL sources, showing the methods used to arrive at the numbers and the conclusion that those numbers lead to. But of course, you didn't bother to read them. And you call ME close-minded?

Look, comrade, I went to those two anti-CIA links you posted, and I read the entire sites in the belief that they had some relevance to the issue under discussion. And they were LONG freakin' sites, filled with slanted, misrepresented, undocumented rhetoric. Yet I read through them anyway.

I then took the time to present in a logical, organized manner, what the REAL situation was with the wealthiest 1% of Americans. I did you the courtesy of wading through that claptrap you linked. The least you could do is read my rebuttal.

i would be surprised if they are much different from my original estimate.

Well then, you're in for a surprise. If you ever do get around to reading them you'll see they are nowhere near your original estimate.

pinky



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLallafa
p_g monocle
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/13/01
Posts: 2,598
Loc: underbelly
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #892330 - 09/18/02 10:39 PM (21 years, 6 months ago)

"Did they try to persuade others to elect candidates of their choosing? Yes. Did they try to get those candidates to pass legislation favorable to their interests? Yes. What's your point? "

did they use the us government to acquire more wealth?
Yes.

"The region is the focus of a key US-initiated military operation aimed at guarding a pipeline used to pump out oil from fields operated by US-based Occidental Petroleum. The US provided $98 million last year for the arming and training of a special battalion, which essentially acts as a security guard for Occidentals corporate interests. The pipeline has been a target of guerrilla attacks. "

are they still doing this?!?
Obviously.


--------------------
my tax dollars going to more hits of acid for charles manson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineREPLICON_TRON
there is nospoon
Registered: 09/16/02
Posts: 34
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #894775 - 09/19/02 11:07 PM (21 years, 5 months ago)

If capitalism means making a profit...well then it is still around...otherwise  what ever system you are refering to is as outdated as the steam engine.......we just dont have an accurate vocabulary word for what has arrived ...."globalized inter- dependency..globilization....ahhhhh ptoowey.....something else is up...I can feel it every time I enter psilo-space.....did you see the movie enemy of the state...?.....?....?  what the hell is up with all that tech shit...Its like Tek..vs...tech... :confused:   

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMortMtroN
journeyman
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 62
Last seen: 21 years, 5 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #898616 - 09/21/02 10:58 PM (21 years, 5 months ago)

"And how does he obtain tools, food, clothing, shelter, and transportation? With money. My question is, how much money does he have to have before he is considered rich? Enough to buy all the tools, food, clothing, shelter, and transportation he and his dependents will use in the next 24 hours? Or in the next 24 days? The next 24 months? The next 24 years? An approximate answer will do."

I don't know if there is any defining point. But I do think that every individual knows when he is being greedy.


"If he is not using them for any other purpose than making money, then he doesn't rightfully own it.

Does this hold true for all means of production, or only for housing? Note that a dwelling is not even a means of production."

landlordship is a form of usury, usury is making a living by any means other than labor. I believe that all forms of usury depend on the exploitation of laborers in order to make a profit and are therefore unethical.

"What is someone to do who doesn't have the skills and/or tools and materials to build their own home? Where are they to live?"

wherever they are living. I don't understand quite what you mean by this question. If you want to know how I propose to solve much of the homelessness in the US I think a good solution is squatting. Many homes are owned by the rockford housing authority that are just being run down because of nobody living there, yet because of property laws it is technically illegal to live there. Squatting solves both problems. Squatters usually turn shitty old run down dwellings into liveable homes while supplying people with a place to live.

"But the landlord DOES use it. He uses it to make a living by renting it to tenants who need a place to live. That same landlord may also own an office building. He rents the offices space to businesses who need an office. He may also own a warehouse. He rents it to businesses who need space in which to store their products. Etc."

Maybe the landlord should do what most people do. Work!!! It isn't right that he lives off of other peoples hard work just because he is fortunate enough to own property. He is freeloading.


"What do you do when no one is hiring? How do you keep yourself alive?"

family and friends. This is also freeloading but it is different. I take what is given and I recieve by asking. Usurers use the law to coerce people into letting them freeload off of their hard work.

The only exception to this would be stealing from usurers.

"If the laborer feels he is being exploited, why doesn't he simply obtain resources on his own, and produce goods himself, and fill in the hundreds of government forms required to prove his goods meet government regulations, and buy the required licenses, and pay the required taxes, then sell and deliver the goods himself, and thereby keep 100% of the sale price of the goods?"

This requires tremendous amounts of capital for the initial investment. Most laborers are struggling to pay the rent.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: MortMtroN]
    #902528 - 09/23/02 06:54 PM (21 years, 5 months ago)

MortMtroN writes:

I don't know if there is any defining point. But I do think that every individual knows when he is being greedy.

So you don't know if there is any defining point at which someone is to be considered "rich"? Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.

landlordship is a form of usury, usury is making a living by any means other than labor.

Incorrect. From the Ocford Dictionary of Current English: "usury: lending of money at interest, esp. at exorbitant or illegal rate."

One does not have to be a landlord in order to practice usury, nor does the renting of structures constitute usury. The two have no connection whatsoever.

wherever they are living. I don't understand quite what you mean by this question.

I really don't know how to phrase it any more clearly. If no one was allowed to rent living space to others, exactly WHERE would all those people currently living in rental accomodations live? Would they pitch tents in public parks?

If you want to know how I propose to solve much of the homelessness in the US I think a good solution is squatting... etc., etc.

Apart from the fact that this "solution" is daft even for the existing homeless, imagine how many homeless there would be if the rental of living space were outlawed. Everyone currently living in every high rise, low-rise, duplex, triplex, walk-up and boarding house would be shit out of luck, wouldn't they? I suppose you are aware that the majority of people in the US rent... that less than 50% of the population OWN homes. I ask again... where will those hundreds of millions of people live if it becomes illegal to rent?

Maybe the landlord should do what most people do. Work!!! It isn't right that he lives off of other peoples hard work just because he is fortunate enough to own property. He is freeloading.

I owned a house in Canada that I rented out to others for a few years when I first moved to the Dominican Republic. No one gave me the house, dude. I worked hard for it. The father of a friend of mine worked damn hard all his life, but he didn't trust banks and inflation (which shows his intelligence) so rather than putting his savings in the bank, he bought a number of rowhouses, one at a time. Of course, he still had to work, since a large percentage of his tenants trashed the places, skipped out owing months and months of back rent, or simply refused to either pay the rent OR vacate. They just put down the first and last months' rent and refused to budge until a court order was finally issued. Even then they would ignore the eviction notice and had to literally be removed bodily by the police. Do you have any idea how hard it is to evict a tenant? And of course, once they finally are evicted, the landlord has to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours working to repair the place for the next tenant.

Even I had a few problems with my carefully selected, supposedly upstanding tenants. I personally would NEVER be a landlord, not because it is immoral, but because it's too much damn work and way too many headaches for too little return. Fuck it.

Usurers use the law to coerce people into letting them freeload off of their hard work.

Usurers lend money at interest. Not only do they not "coerce" anyone into accepting the loan, they turn down WAY more people than they accept. Ask anyone who has ever tried to get a business loan from a bank.

This requires tremendous amounts of capital for the initial investment.

Contrary to what you may believe, I wasn't describing Bethlehem Steel. I was describing what EVERY business owner must do... even most one-man businesses. If you want to build jet airliners or manufacture pharmaceuticals, then of course you need a tremendous amount of capital. If you want to sell hot dogs from a cart on the street, you need less capital.

Note that if you yourself don't have enough capital, there is nothing stopping you from getting a bunch of like-minded "exploited workers" together and starting your own business -- you don't have to go it alone.

Here's the deal -- if you feel you are being taken advantage of by a landlord, don't rent. Live in a box in an alley or pitch a tent in a public park or squat in an abandoned building. If you don't want to be exploited by some evil capitalist, don't work for one. Work for yourself or freeload off others. Makes no difference to me either way.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Interesting thought.... [Re: Phred]
    #1819323 - 08/16/03 07:20 AM (20 years, 7 months ago)

bumped for Cornholio


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Concentrates   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Liquid Cultures   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Dominican Republic
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Baby_Hitler 5,326 62 11/10/05 12:00 PM
by psiclops
* Quake in Dominican Republic shakta 501 2 09/23/03 08:11 AM
by shakta
* Conflict of Interest the Other Way Autonomous 694 2 03/22/05 01:27 PM
by JesusChrist
* US troops to 'protect oil interests' in Africa? Edame 827 1 07/11/03 12:55 PM
by Xlea321
* Israel vs. Iraq Biased, but interesting
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Buddha5254 14,106 133 11/08/02 11:01 AM
by Innvertigo
* Russia says to defend post-war Iraq oil interests
( 1 2 all )
pattern 2,963 22 03/28/03 02:31 PM
by grib
* It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. RonoS 2,478 12 09/27/02 12:03 AM
by downforpot
* Interesting (but long) article on electronic voting. luvdemshrooms 793 0 10/15/03 03:44 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
10,579 topic views. 1 members, 11 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.068 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.